IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 RCRev..No. 29 of 2004() ----------------------- RCA.89/2003 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM RCP.26/2001 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITONER: ------------------------------------------------------------- P.M. MAJEEB, 6/1250, INDIAN CHAMBER ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-2. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.SUNIL SHANKER RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. ALLEPPEY SARVODAYA SANGHOM, P.O. PALARIMANGALAM, MAVELILKARA-690 107, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE MANAGER, ALLEPPEY SARVODAYA SANGHOM, SHOP ROOM NO.4/664, PALACE ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-2. ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON 22/10/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No.29 of 2004 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This revision is filed by the landlord, aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following: 2. The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). He purchased the property by virtue of document No.574/1996 of the Sub Registry, Kochi. The tenant is a co-operative society. Subsequent to the purchase, they have attorned to the landlord. The landlord contended that he bonafide requires the premises for his own occupation, i.e. for running a video shop. He was already running a video shop in a rented premises and the landlord of the said premises demanded vacant possession of it and hence he has to shift the same to the petition schedule building. The tenant denied the bonafide need pleaded and specifically contended that the landlord is not running a video shop and the alleged landlord of the said RCR 29/2004 -2- room has not demanded any vacant possession of the premises. He has also other buildings for starting his business. 3. The Appellate Authority disallowed eviction on the specific finding that there is no evidence to show that the landlord is conducting a video shop in a rented premises. It was also found that the evidence adduced by him in support of the plea are totally insufficient to hold that the landlord was conducting any business as pleaded by him. It is on this ground the petition was dismissed. 4. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and Exts.A1 and A2 and C1 Commission report were marked on the side of the landlord. C.P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined on the side of the tenants and they have produced Exts.B1 to B3 series, B4 and B5. 5. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner which was relied upon to prove that the landlord is conducting a business in running a video shop. The Rent Control Court straight away accepted the report of the Commissioner to find that the landlord is doing business in a rented premises. There is no detailed discussion of the facts and evidence of the case, in the order. It was merely observed that the claim put forward by the petitioner deserves consideration and it is found that the petitioner is in need of the petition schedule room for his business by shifting it from the rented premises now occupied by him. The specific objection raised by the RCR 29/2004 -3- tenant that the landlord is not doing any business, was not properly considered. 6. A reading of the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority shows that the entire evidence has been discussed in detail. Going by Ext.C1 report, the landlord is conducting business in a shop room bearing No.14/2088 situated at Chullikkal Road, Chullikkal. The Commissioner was shown a lease deed 1.11.1995 executed between the wife of the petitioner and one Shri V.T. Velayudhan Pillai. Another lease deed is of the year 1999 which is executed between the landlord and the wife of Shri Velayudhan Pillai. But no documents have been annexed along with the report of the Commissioner or produced in evidence before the Rent Control Court to show that he is doing business in a rented premises. The Appellate Authority found that if, as a matter of fact, the landlord was doing some business actually, he will be having documents regarding the payment of licence fee, receipt for payment of rent and registration of the shop under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, etc. He did not produce the lease deed before the court to prove that he is the tenant of building No.14/2088. Even in Ext.A1 lawyer notice issued by the landlord, he did not mention the door number of the premises at which he is alleged to be conducting his business. The same is the case of the petition for eviction filed before the Rent Control Court also. In these circumstances, it was RCR 29/2004 -4- concluded by the Appellate Authority that the pleading regarding the place of business now being conducted by the landlord is vague. The non- production of any documents to support the plea was also relied upon against him. Thus, the landlord failed to prove that he is conducting video business in a rented premises. 7. Even though these findings have been challenged in this revision petition, we are of the view that the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority are based on clear analysis of the pleadings and evidence. Merely by showing two lease deeds to the Advocate Commissioner, the landlord wanted to establish that he is doing business in a rented building. Those documents have been withheld from producing before the court. The fact that he has not shown any door number in Ext.A1 notice and in the Rent Control Petition shows that the pleadings are only vague. Actually, the bonafide requirement pleaded is to shift the said business. In the proof affidavit also the details regarding the building number of the rented premises, commencement of the tenancy, etc. are not stated. The name and address of his landlord is also not there. None of the rent receipts have been produced. In the cross-examination various questions have been put challenging his claim. Apart from that, the oral evidence of the landlord also shows that his brother-in-law Shri Usman was looking after all affairs of the petition schedule building. Thus, it is a case where there is total RCR 29/2004 -5- failure on the part of the landlord to prove that he had been conducting a video shop in a rented premises. The landlord of the said building has also not been examined. Therefore, all these indicate clearly that the bonafide need pleaded has not been established in a cogent and convincing manner. Thus, rightly it was found that the ground under Section 11(3) has not been established. We are of the view that the evidence, as analysed by the Appellate Authority, does not support the plea of the landlord. The view taken is a plausible one and cannot be said to be perverse. In exercise of the powers of revision, we cannot substitute our own views to that of the Appellate Authority. The landlord can approach the court with better particulars and cogent evidence to establish his bonafide need, if so advised. For all these reasons, the revision petition is dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/