IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 445 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.68/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THALASSERY RCP.258/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT COURT, KANNUR .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------- POOVANKULATHIL THOTTOM PUTHIYAPURAYIL KUNHIPATHUMMA, D/O.MAMMED KUNHI, AGED 45 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, 'KARAMMS', PANNIYANKANDI, KAMBIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ANDOOR VEETIL NARAYANAN NAMBIAR (DIED). 2. SUPPL: SARASWATHI AMMA, W/O.LATE ANDOOR VEETIL NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 65 YEARS. 3. ANDOOR VEETIL JYOTHI, D/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 42 YEARS, 4. ANDOOR VEETIL JYOTHSNA, D/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,AGED 42 YEARS, 5. ANDOOR VEETIL SUDHEENDRAN, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 40 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT ANDOOR VEETIL HOUSE,KAYARALAM, P.O.KOLACHERY, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 601. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.445 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlady is the revision petitioner. She challenges in this revision the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlady was that the petition schedule building is required bona fide for occupation of her brother-in-law Sri. Abdul Hameed for the purpose of conducting provision cum stationery business. It was also contended that the landlady does not have any other building which she then provides to her brother-in-law for accomplishing the need. 2. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenants, who contended that the landlady is already in possession of another building having door number 488 with old number 402, which can be provided to her brother - in- law. It was also contended that the tenants are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. RCR.No.445/2011 2 3. Before the Rent Control Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A8, Exts.B1 and B2, PWs1 to 3 and RW1. PW1 was the landlady and PW2 was the landlady's needy brother in law. PW3 was one Sri.P.T.P.ummerkutty, who according to the landlady, had already been put in possession of room having door number 488. Ext.B1 was the property tax assessment register maintained by Kolachery Grama Panchayath in respect of the room having door number 488. Ext.B1 reveals that during the period from 1997 to 2006 the above building was under the vacant possession of the landlady herself. The landlady relied on Ext.A5 koolichit dated 10/5/2005, Ext.A7 the profession tax receipt dated 3/8/2005 and Ext.A8 licence fee receipt dated 13/8/2006 in support of her contention that the petition schedule building is already let out to Sri.P.T.P.Ummerkutty. The two statutory authorities on meticulous analysis of Exts.B1, A5, A7 and A8 and the oral evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that Exts.A5, A7 and A8 are fake documents brought into existence by the landlady for making it appear that the petition schedule building is already let out to Sri. P.T.P.Ummerkutty at the time when the rent control petition RCR.No.445/2011 3 was instituted. The above finding was confirmed by the Appellate Authority also. Hence, it was found concurrently by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority that eviction order was not liable to be passed against the tenants under sub section (3) of Section 11. However, it was held that the tenants were unsuccessful in showing that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The landlady had invoked the ground under Section 11 (2)(b) also. Both the authorities concurrently found that the rent was in arrears as alleged and ordered eviction under Section 11 (2)(b). The above order is not under challenge before us. 4. In this revision under Section 20, the landlady has raised various grounds assailing the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed submissions based on those grounds. Drawing our attention to Exts.A5, A6 and A7 and the oral evidence of PW3, the learned counsel argued that there was clinching evidence to hold that the building having door number 488 had already been let out to Sri.P.T.P.Ummerkutty by the time when the rent control petition was instituted. RCR.No.445/2011 4 Appreciation of evidence by the two statutory authorities has been grossly irregular and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel requested that the revision petition be admitted and the records be called for, so that this court can appreciate the evidence and come to right conclusions regarding the relevant factual issues. 5. Even the very persuasive submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner do not persuade us to admit this revision. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. The short question, which arises for consideration before us, is whether the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. As rightly noticed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ext.B1 is a document which is liable to be relied on in proceedings under the Rent Control Court in terms of Section 26 of Act 2 of 1965. The statute arouses presumption regarding the correctness of the facts stated in Ext. B2, which is to the effect that the building having door number 488 is under the vacant possession of the landlady during the relevant period. The statutory authorities did not RCR.No.445/2011 5 become inclined to accept the rebuttal evidence - Exts.A5, A6 and A7 and the oral evidence of PW3 on cogent reasons. Exts.A6 and A7 are obviously post litem documents. Ext.A5 is a koolichit which contains corrections and defects and, in our opinion, the two fact findings authorities had good reasons to discard Ext.A5. Even the oral evidence adduced by the revision petitioner/landlady did not inspire confidence in the mind of the statutory authorities. The jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is revisional in nature and this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence when the two fact findings courts under the statutory scheme have entered reasonable findings founded on evidence available on record. We do not find any warrant for interference within the well delineated contours of the jurisdiction under Section 20 for interfering with the finding of the two statutory authorities that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of operation of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Therefore, we confirm the order declining eviction under Section 11 (3). But, we make it clear that this order confirming the order of the statutory authorities declining eviction under Section 11 (3) will not stand RCR.No.445/2011 6 in the way of the revision petitioner/landlady filing fresh rent control petition under the same ground also if change of circumstances justify the same. But, we notice that the subject building situated within the limits of Kannur Municipality is not fetching to the landlady the rent which the building may fetch if the same is let out today. We are, therefore, inclined to issue notice to the respondents/tenants for considering refixation of the rent payable by the respondents. 6. The result of the above discussion therefore is as follows; i). The order declining eviction under Section 11(3) is confirmed. ii). The revision petition is dismissed in limine. iii). Issue notice to the respondents/tenants by speed post to decide the issue of refixing the rent payable by the respondents/tenants. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk RCR.No.445/2011 7