IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 317 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.33/2001 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KASARAGOD RCP.7/2000 of RENT CONTROL COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------- K.K. BHARATHAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KAKKARAYIL GOVINDAN, PROPRIETOR OF ASHOKA WATCH WORKS, OM MAHAL BUILDING, HOSDURG, P.O.KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SMT.HEMALATHA SRI.V.R.REKESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- K. SHYAMALA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.A.KRISHNAN, CHEMMATTOM VAYAL, BALLA VILLAGE, P.O. KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 315. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.317 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Abdul Rehim, J. The revision petitioner is the tenant who suffered concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority, on the ground under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965, on the basis of need for own occupation put forth by the landlady. The landlady claimed eviction projecting need for starting a ready made shop in the tenanted premises. She claimed that she had undergone training in tailoring and embroidery works and hence she is intending to set up a business in ready made garments. The Rent Control Court reposed confidence on the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlady and found that the need projected is most bonafide and genuine. After evaluating Exts.A1 to A12 documents and oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, which is controverted through Exts.B1 to B5 and oral evidence of RW1 and RW2, the Rent Control Court categorically found that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground enumerated under Section 11(3). The claim of the tenant with respect to the benefit of RCR.No.317/2011 2 provisos under Section 11 (3) were also found against the revision petitioner/tenant. 2. In appeal, the Appellate Authority, after having elaborate re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the trial court. In the attenuated jurisdiction conferred on this court under Section 20 of the Act, we are not supposed to venture any re-appraisal of the evidence. On a perusal of the findings arrived by the courts below and on a quick re-appraisal of the material evidences, we do not find any illegalities, irregularities or improprieties in the findings arrived by both the courts below, in spite of vehement and apparently attractive arguments put forth by Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. We find that no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is warranted. Hence, the revision petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we do so. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk