IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 25 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.7/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TRIVANDRUM RCP.91/2006 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS IN RCA 7/2010 & COUNTER PETITIONER IN R ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARYKKUTTY VARGHESE, TC 27/228, ARAPPURAVILAKAM, OORUMADOM ROAD, THAMPURAN MUKKU, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PAULINE SEBASTIAN, TC 27/228, ARAPPURAVILAKAM, OORUMADOM ROAD, THAMPURAN MUKKU, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M.V.GEORGE, TC 27/228, ARAPPURAVILAKAM, OORUMADOM ROAD, THAMPURAN MUKKU, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. LILLYKUTTY GEORGE, TC 27/228, ARAPPURAVILAKAM, OORUMADOM ROAD, THAMPURAN MUKKU, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MATHEW M.VARGHESE, TC 27/228, ARAPPURAVILAKAM, OORUMADOM ROAD, THAMPURAN MUKKU, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SMT.JANCY ALEX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN RCA AND PETITIONER IN RCP ------------------------------------------------------ V.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE M.VELAYUDHAN, 'RATNA MANDIRAM', MANALOOR, NEYYATTINKARA NOW RESIDING AT 'UTARAYAN', TGRA-42, TAGORE GARDEN NEAR SHISHAK SADAN, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.SURESH FOR R1 SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 25 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority concurrently under Section 11 (2) and 11 (3) of the Act. The petition schedule building is a residential building and the need projected by the landlord was that he is affected by so many ailments and wants to come over to Thiruvananthapuram and stay in the petition schedule building, so that he can take treatment from doctors and hospitals in Thiruvananthapuram city. In the first instance, the rent control court held that need is bona fide and ordered eviction. However, the learned Appellate Authority noticed that the landlord was residing in a building by name 'utarayan' at Thiruvananthapuram and that the landlord himself was the owner of this building at some point of time and that there was no good evidence on the basis of which the landlord's version that he is staying in the building as a tenant would be accepted. Hence, RCR.No.25/2011 2 the Appellate Authority remanded the Rent Control Petition to the Rent Control Court to decide the question whether the rent control petition was liable to be dismissed due to availability of the building by name 'utarayan' to the landlord for residence. After remand, the landlord produced additional documents including Exts. A17 to A19 which showed that though the landlord was originally the owner of this building, the landlord had gifted this building to his son long ago and the son also has sold the property to one Dr. Jaipal from six years prior to the filing of the rent control petition and that it is Dr.Jaipal who had let out the building to the landlord on the basis of a rental arrangement between them. The Rent Control court therefore held that the availability of the building 'utarayan' was on lease and that such availability cannot be stand in the way of the landlord getting order of eviction under Section 11(3). Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3) apart from reiterating the order of eviction which had been passed under Section 11 (2(b) in the first instance itself. 2. The learned Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment has confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11 RCR.No.25/2011 3 (3) and Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed very strenuous arguments on the basis of those grounds. The learned counsel highlighted that availability of the building 'utarayan' had been suppressed by the landlord in the rent control petition and it is only when he was cross examined by the tenants' counsel that he confessed that he himself was the owner of the above building at an earlier point of time. The documents Exts.A17 to A19 pertain to another building and not to the building 'utarayan', so submitted by the learned counsel. The judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court are vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire arrears of rent found by the statutory authorities has since been discharged and hence there is no justification for sustaining the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2)(b). 4. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We have RCR.No.25/2011 4 gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the rent control court. We remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. In this revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 we are not expected ordinarily to make reappraisal of the pleadings and evidence for the purpose of substituting factual conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities especially when they are concurrent. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the finding by that authority that there exists a bona fide need for the landlord to shift his residence from Neyyattinkara to the petition schedule building at Thiruvananthapuram is a reasonable finding founded on legal evidence. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Exts.A17 to A19 pertain to some other building. It is seen that no serious objection was taken to Exts.A17 to A19 in the trial court by the revision petitioners. Exts.A17 to A19 will show that the landlord had gifted the building 'utarayan' to his son several years prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition and the son conveyed the ownership to Dr.Jaipal at least six years prior to the filing of RCR.No.25/2011 5 the rent control petition. The finding is that the present residence of the landlord in 'utarayan' is on the basis of a rental arrangement. The finding to that effect entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority is based on evidence. There is no irregularity, illegality or impropriety about that finding. 5. As for the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2) (b), it is obvious that, that order is yet to be set aside by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (2)(c) of the Act. If as a matter of fact, the entire arrears of rent is already discharged by the revision petitioners, there will not be difficulty for the revision petitioners to get that order set aside by moving the rent control court under Section 11(2)(c). We permit the revisions petitioners to invoke Section 11 (2)(c) within one month from today. The revision has to fail and will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk