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 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 102 of 2011() ------------------------ (RCA NO.34/2008 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KOLLAM RCOP NO.2/2006 MUNSIFF -MAGISTRATE PARAVOR REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ MANU RAJAN,S/O.RAJAN,AGED 29 YEARS, MAVILAZHIKATHU THAZHAM,CHATHANNOORE. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITONER ----------------------------------- KUNJU KUNJAMMA,W/O.M.J.JACOB,AGED 44 YRS MAVILAZHIKOM,THAZHAM,CHATHANNOORE. ADV. SRI.K.M.VIVEKANANDAN FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 102 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner on the ground of additional accommodation under sub section (8) of Section 11. In fact, the landlady, who is an aunty of the revision petitioner, had invoked grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation and the ground under section 11(8) to evict the revision petitioner. As the entire arrears of rent had been discharged, the statutory authorities did not order eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The eviction order was declined on the ground under section 11(3) due to the obvious reason that the court could not pass combined order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) as those grounds are mutually exclusive. 2. The need projected by the landlady, who is conducting RCR .No.102/2011 2 STD booth and sale of mobile phone recharge coupons in the first floor of the building, is that she wants the petition schedule building situated in the ground floor by way of additional accommodation. It was urged that if the petition schedule building is also obtained, it will be possible for the landlady to offer Email and Internet facilities to her customers. 3. The bona fides of the need for additional accommodation was disputed by the revision petitioner/tenant and it was contended that the hardship, which will be occasioned to the revision petitioner, will not outweigh the advantages if any which will be gained by the landlady. It was urged that if necessary, the landlady is having vacant space in the first floor itself and the need can be accomplished by utilising the first floor space. The revision petitioner contended that the income from the business carried on in the petition schedule premises by selling ayurvedic medicines accounted for the main source of livelihood and it was contended further that other suitable buildings are not available for shifting the business conducted by the tenant. 4. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter. In the RCR .No.102/2011 3 enquiry, the landlady got herself examined as PW1 and a neighbour of the landlady was examined as PW2. On the side of the tenant, himself was examined as RW1 and two witnesses including the Accommodation Controller were also examined. The documentary evidence on the side of the landlady consisted of Exts.A1 to A11 while that on the side of the tenant consisted of Exts.B1 to B11. The learned Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need for additional accommodation is bona fide. It was concluded further that the advantages which the landlady will gain will outweigh the hardship if any which may be sustained by the tenant. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed under Section 11(8). 5. The learned Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and would concur with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 6. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.Bimal.K.Nath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would at the very outset request that the rent control petition be RCR .No.102/2011 4 referred to the daily Adalath conduced by the High Court Legal Services Committee as the parties are close relatives and there is a likelihood of the issue being resolved amicably. We are not inclined to accede to the above request of the learned counsel. Sri.Bimal.K.Nath would argue that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties as contemplated by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. According to him, even in a case under Section 11(8), it is necessary that the landlord should establish the bona fides of the need. In this particular case the landlady was in possession of sufficient vacant area adjacent to the space where she is presently conducting the STD Booth and sale of mobile phone recharge coupons, If the need was bona fide, the same could have been accomplished by utilisiing the vacant space available in the first floor portion itself. The learned counsel would attack the finding of the authorities below regarding the tenant's eligibility for the benefit of the proviso to section 11(10). According to the learned counsel, the Accommodation Controller has even given convincing evidence to the effect that no vacancies have been reported to him in respect of any building RCR .No.102/2011 5 in the area. Though it is true that the revision petitioner is conducting the sale of recharge coupons in addition to the sale of ayurvedic medicines, both these activities are being conducted from the petition schedule building itself and hence the eviction is inevitable. The revision petitioner is depending mainly on the income derived from the petition schedule building so submits the learned counsel. According to him, the impugned judgment warrants interference under Section 20. 7. We have anxiously considered the submissions of Mr.Bimal.K.Nath. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. The question, which arises before us, is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, warrants interference under Section 20. Having gone through the above judgment, we find that the findings therein are in concurrence with the Rent Control Court's finding. The finding that the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlady is bona fide and the further finding that the advantages to be gained by the landlady will outweigh the hardship if any which may be sustained by the tenant are RCR .No.102/2011 6 findings founded on inspiring oral evidence adduced by PW1 and the other evidence available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory authorities on the basis of the evidence on record, this court is not expected in revision to venture upon a de nevo reappraisal of the findings for the purpose of arriving at different conclusion on facts. It is trite by various decisions of this court and the Supreme Court that the standards of bona fides require to be established in a case under Section 11 (8) is not so rigorous as in a case under Section 11 (3). We are sure that appreciation of the evidence by the statutory authorities has been proper and those authorities have kept in mind binding judicial precedents governing the issue while coming to the conclusion that the need for a additional accommodation is bona fide. 8. The same is the postilion as regards the applicability of the proviso to sub section (10) of Section 11. It has been found by the authorities that the revision petitioner is conducting business of sale of recharge coupons in another building also. Evidently the revision petitioner did not produce any document which will show as to what is the income that he derives from RCR .No.102/2011 7 the petition schedule building. Thus, the revision petitioner miserably failed to prove that the income derived by him from the petition schedule building accounts for his main source of livelihood. There is oral evidence in this case to the effect that the other buildings are available in the locality. As against this, there is only the evidence of the Accommodation Controller. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Vacancy Registers which are expected to be maintained by the Accommodation Controller are not seriously maintained in the sense that no landlord or tenant reports vacancies to the Accommodation Controller. The revision petitioner will not be entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 (if the claim was under section 11(3)). We feel that the authorities below were justified in taking the view that hardship to be suffered by the tenant by eviction will not outweigh the advantages to be gained by the landlady. We notice in this context that the advantages to be gained by the landlady will be considerable as she will be able to offer facilities of Email and Internet to her customers once she get premises in the ground floor also. RCR .No.102/2011 8 9. The result of the above discussion is that the revision petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. 10. However, considering the submissions of Mr.Bimal K.Nath at the outset, that as parties are close relatives the chances of a settlement between the parties should be explored, even as we dismiss the revision petition confirming the order of eviction, we direct the Execution Court not to order delivery until all the possibilities of a settlement between the parties are explored and found unsuccessful. The Execution Court can even refer the Execution Petition for resolution in one of the Adalaths conducted under the auspices of the Kollam District Legal Service Authority. Delivery warrant should be ordered only on failure of all settlement efforts. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk