IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 107 of 2009() ------------------------ REVIN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- H.V.REMADEVI, WIDOW OF LATE H.N.VADIRAJA RAO,LALITHA BHAVAN, VADAKKUMBHAGOM WARD,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ JAYANTHI,W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRINIVAS,VADAKKUMBHAGOM WARD,KOLLAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 107 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act 2 of 1965 initiated by a tenant, is the order of eviction concurrently passed against her on the ground of bona fide own occupation. The buildings, which are subject matter of the rent control petition, are two rooms in the ground floor of a two storied building having three rooms in the ground floor and two rooms in the first floor. Need projected in the rent control petition was that the subject rooms i.e. room Nos. 573 & 574 presently under the possession of the revision petitioner-2nd respondent in the RCP and the first respondent therein for conducting hotel business is needed bona fide by the landlady and her husband, so that they can start the same line of business for their sustenance. The bona fides of the need and the claim was denied and alternatively the revision petitioner/2nd R.C.R.No.107 /2009 2 respondent in the RCP contended that she is entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The rent control court enquired into the RCP and at trial the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A7 and the oral testimonies of landlady as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2. Two tenants were examined on the side of the tenant as CPW1 and CPW2. The rent control court on appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the need and the claim projected by the landlady was bona fide. It was also found that the tenants were unsuccessful in establishing that they satisfy any of the the limbs of second proviso to sub section 3 of Section 11. The appellate authority in appeal preferred by the tenants reappreciated the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the rent control court. 2. Sri.M.Narendrakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has addressed us extensively. Sri.Narendrakumarl submitted that the case projected by the landlady in the rent control petition was that room No.572 is being occupied by her for residential purpose and that the said room is not suitable for R.C.R.No.107 /2009 3 business purposes. Counsel submitted that it has come out in evidence from the mouth of landlady- PW1 herself that she has already purchased a residential building in her own name. Thus, room No.572 is already available with the landlady. Sri.Narendrakumar submitted that during the pendency of the rent control appeal ,room No.573, one of the rooms in respect of this RCP was filed, also fell vacant since the first respondent in the rent control petition surrendered the same. Presently, the landlady and her husband are conducting hotel business in room Nos. 572 & 573. Thus the need projected has been completely satisfied. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is not necessary to evict the revision petitioner, who was the 2nd respondent in the rent control petition. Sri.Narendrakumar further submitted that the upstair room Nos. 583 and 584, which were in the possession of tenants at the time of commencement of the rent control petition, have also be got vacated by the landlady. Thus, the landlady is presently having as many as four out of the five rooms in the entire two storyed building. Thus, the landlady has presently sufficient space for accomplishing the need projected in the rent control petition. R.C.R.No.107 /2009 4 3. We have anxiously considered the submissions of Sri.Narendrakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. In this jurisdiction we do not sit in appeal over the conclusions of the authorities under the Rent Control Act especially when they are concurrent and are founded on evidence. Having gone through the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, we find that the findings are based on evidence. The need projected in the rent control petition was the need to occupy room Nos.573 & 574. As regards the room No. 573, the definite case of the landlady was that the same is not suitable for conducting restaurant business since it does not have direct frontage of the road. May be through rooms 573, 574 room 572 is also having access to the road. But the authorities - Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have accepted the explanation of the landlady for deciding to start restaurant business in room Nos. 573 & 574 in preference to room No.572 is a valid one and we, in this jurisdiction, do not find any infirmity about that view taken by the authorities. As for room Nos. 583 & 584 in R.C.R.No.107 /2009 5 the first floor, having regard to the nature of the business proposed to be conducted by the landlady, which is almost identical to the business which is presently carried on by the revision petitioner herself, it is seen that offer was given to the revision petitioner before the appellate authority to exchange a room in the first floor for the petition schedule building. The said offer was not acceptable to the revision petitioner. It is too much on the part of the revision petitioner to insist that the landlady should occupy the rooms in the first floor and permit her to possess the petition schedule room, which is room in the ground floor. In our opinion also, the ground floor room is more ideal for the conduct of type of business which is proposed by the 2nd respondent. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. This rent control petition, according to us, is liable to be dismissed. As his last submission Sri.Narendrakumar sought for 9 months time to surrender the premises. We are not inclined to grant so much of time. However, we feel that on considerations R.C.R.No.107 /2009 6 of indulgence, there is justification for granting six months time. Accordingly, even as we dismiss the rent control revision petition, there will be a direction to the execution court to defer ordering and effecting delivery of the petition schedule building to 15/12/2009 subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner gives an undertaking before the execution court in the form of an affidavit stating that she will peacefully surrender the building presently in her possession to the respondent on or before 14/12/2009 and further that she will discharge arrears of rent, if any and will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate till she surrenders the petition schedule building. ii). Affidavit as directed above shall be filed within two weeks from today and if affidavit is not filed within the above time frame, the revision petitioner will not be R.C.R.No.107 /2009 7 entitled for the benefit of time granted by this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk