IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 RCRev..No. 236 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- (RCA NO.5/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALAPPUZHA IN RCP NO.43/2002 OF THE RETN CONTROLLER, ALAPPUZHA) REVISION PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------- R.SELVARAJ, RESIDING AMCW XVII/444, PICHU AYYER JUNCTION, MULLACKAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- 1. R.KRISHNARJUNAN, PANACKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. LEELAVALLY AMMAL, RESIDING AT 317, DB ROAD, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE. 3. SIVAKAMI, W/O.LATE RAJAN BABU, ADHULYA APARTMENTS, NEAR HOTEL ALANKAR, COIMBATORE-9. 4. SIDHARTHAN, D/O.RAJAN BABU, MINOR, AGED DO. DO. 5. SWATHI, D/O.SIVAKAMI, MINOR, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 236 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition filed by the tenant is an order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. Two buildings are subject matter of the rent control proceedings. One is a commercial building and the other is a residential building. The tenant also is in residential occupation of the residential building and is carrying on furniture business in the commercial building. The need projected by the landlord was that in the commercial building he wants to carry on DTP centre, zerox copying and STD Booth business and that he wants to reside in the residential building. The Rent Control Court was inspired by the oral evidence, which was given by the landlord as PW1 and on evaluating the entire evidence on record, that court found that the need is bona fide. That court also found that the tenant had not succeeded in establishing that he is entitled to the RCR.No.236/2009 2 protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the mother of the landlord passed away. The mother was in possession of a building belonging to the mother and the tenant filed an application before the Appellate Authority requesting that the demise of the mother may be noticed as a subsequent event affecting the landlord's right to get eviction. That application was dismissed by the Appellate Authority taking the view that after the mother's demise the landlord has come to have only a fractional interest in that building and also that some of the other legal heirs of the mother including a widowed daughter are in residential occupation of that building. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction. 2. This revision is filed assailing the findings of the Appellate Authority on the various grounds. I.A. No.2982/2009 is filed by the tenant pointing out that the building having Door No.AMC 17/446 was got vacated by the landlord on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation and the said building is RCR.No.236/2009 3 under the vacant possession of the landlord. According to the petitioner/tenant the availability of the building having Door No. AMC 17/446 with the landlord is a relevant subsequent event, which eclipses the need projected by the landlord in the present RCP. As directed by us, the landlord has filed counter affidavit to the application. It is stated therein that the building having Door No. AMC.17/446 was got vacated on the ground that the said building is required for occupation by the landlord's son for starting a computer centre. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the meanwhile the landlord's son got an assignment in U.S.A, which whould be over only in 2010. Sri.M.Narendrakumar, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the landlord's son will definitely come back to India when his present assignment in U.S.A. is over and will start the proposed computer centre business in the building having Door No. AMC 17/446. We are unable to notice the availability of vacant possession of the building having Door No. 17/446 presently with the landlord as an event which eclipses the bona fide need projected by the landlord in the present Rent Control Petition. Even if non occupation of that building by the RCR.No.236/2009 4 landlord's son is without any reasonable cause, then also it is for the tenant, who has been evicted from that building, to move the Rent Control Court under sub section (12) of Section 11 for relief. We cannot pass any order in the present RCP which may affect the right of that tenant under sub section (12) of Section 11. 3. Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the landlord, particularly the oral evidence of PW1, will reveal that the need projected by the landlord is not bona fide. We do not agree. A reading of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, shows that the said Authority reappraised the entire evidence including the oral evidence of PW1. The Appellate Authority has specifically found that despite searching cross examination, the credit of PW1 was not shaken. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that there is no warrant for invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 for substituting the findings of fact concurrently entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the RCR.No.236/2009 5 building in question is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of the projected need in the RCP . Finding of the appellate authority in the context of the second proviso to sub section 2 of Section 11 is also founded on evidence. In that situation, there is no justification for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 4. At the same time, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances attending on this case, we feel that there is justification for acceding to the last request of Sri.P.C.Chacko that an unusually long period be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. Accordingly, we decide the RCR in the following terms; i). The RCR is dismissed. ii). The Revision Petition is granted time till 31/10/2010 to surrender the petition schedule premises subject to the following conditions ; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule RCR.No.236/2009 6 building to the respondents on or before 31/10/2010. The petitioner shall also undertake through the same affidavit that the arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rates as and when the same falls due till he makes actual surrender. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk