IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 106 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.6/2007 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.26/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS(S)/APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.MUHAMMED RAFI ,S/O.K.K.KAREEM AGED 39 YEARS, 11/252, THUNNAKKARA THERUVU, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. K.K.KAREEM, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY AGED 69 YEARS,RESIDING AT 11/252, THUNNAKKARA THERUVU,KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- BHASKAR T.NAIR, S/O.S.N.NAIR 'GEETHI' RAMANATHAPURAM,KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R1 SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.106 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25thday of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants are in revision against the order of eviction concurrently passed against them by the rent control court as well as the appellate authority on the ground of bona fide own occupation under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control)Act, 1965. The need projected by the landlord was that his dependent son, who is a dentist, wants to occupy the petition schedule building, so that he can conduct a clinic. The bona fide of the need and the claim were resisted by the revision petitioners tenants. It was contended by the tenants that the wife of the landlord is having a vacant building in her possession and if the need was bona fide, she could have accommodated her son in that building. Alternatively, it was contended that the tenants are entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The rent control RCR.No.106/2009 2 court enquired into the matter. It was found that the need projected is bona fide. It was also found that the tenants had failed in showing neither the landlord or his wife are having any other vacant building in their possession. Coming to the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, it was found that the tenants have established that they satisfied the first limb of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. However coming to the second limb, it was found that the commissioner had reported that other buildings are lying vacant in the locality and in the absence of any counter evidence to show that the report of the commissioner is incorrect, the second limb was found in favour of the landlord. Since both the limbs are in conjunctive, the court disallowed the benefit of second proviso to the tenants. Accordingly, eviction order was passed. 2. The appellate authority would reappraise the evidence and concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondent. Even though Sri.Ramesh Babu addressed us on the various grounds RCR.No.106/2009 3 raised in the memorandum of revision, we are unable to find any infirmity much less irregularity, illegality or impropriety warranting intervention under Section 20 which is a revisional jurisdiction. Under the statutory scheme, the final authority on facts is the appellate authority. We find that the appellate authority has reappraised the evidence and has correctly concurred with the factual conclusions entered by the rent control court. No evidence was adduced by the revision petitioners to show that the landlord's wife is having a vacant building at her disposal. So also the tenants, who were obliged to adduce evidence to show that the commissioner's report that other buildings are available in the locality is wrong, did not adduce any evidence. In short, we do not find any warrant for interference. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. As his last submissions, learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought for year's time to surrender the premises. This request is opposed by Sri.Benoy Vasudevan. However, we feel that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting time till 31/3/2010 subject to conditions. Accordingly result of the above discussion RCR.No.106/2009 4 is as follows; i). RCR will stand dismissed. ii). The reference court is directed to defer ordering and effecting delivery of the petition schedule building till 1/4/2010, provided following conditions are satisfied by the revision petitioners;- The revision petitioners shall file affidavit before the Execution Court or before the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today stating that they will unconditionally and peacefully surrender possession of the petition schedule building to the respondent landlord on or before 31/3/2010 and that they will discharge the arrears of rent, if any, within one month and will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rates till they surrender RCR.No.106/2009 5 the building as and when the same falls due. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk