IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 247 of 2011 --------------------------- RCA.45/2009 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-II, TRIVANDRUM RCP.80/2008 of ADDL.M.C. (RCC),TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------- BABY PRIYA, D/O SUSEELA, AGED 42 YEARS, R/A DHANYA, NPV 530, MARAVILAKOM, KARUMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- V. CHRISTOPHER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O VINCENT, T.C.27/1913, PUTHEN ROAD JUNCTION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.247 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant of a residential building is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord who is presently residing in a rented building is that he needs to reside in his own petition schedule building. Before the Rent Control Court, he himself gave evidence. He himself testified regarding the bona fides of the need. The tenant/revision petitioner did not mount the witness box to adduce counter evidence. The Rent Control Court was inspired by the evidence adduced by the landlord and found that the need is R. C. R. No.247 of 2011 -2- bona fide. On the basis of that finding, the court ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority re-appraised the evidence and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 2. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.R.Gopan, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us in detail on the basis of those grounds. The submissions of Sri.Gopan notwithstanding having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court and having gauged them by the parametres applicable to the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, it is clear to our mind that there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. According to us, the finding that the landlord needs the building for his own occupation is a reasonable and correct finding entered on the basis of the inspiring R. C. R. No.247 of 2011 -3- evidence given by the landlord. To the landlord's evidence, there was not even formal counter evidence. The judgment of the Appellate Authority requires no interference. The revision will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-