IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 236 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.30/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.3/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------- KANAKAM, W/O. LATE MURUGAPPA PILLAI, SHOP NO.NMC 14/263, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ RAHIM, S/O. SALAHUDEEN, NAJEEMA MANZIL, THUMPODE, ARASUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGADU. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 236 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 18thday of August, 2010 O R D E R Abdul Rehim, J. The tenant/respondent in RCP No. 3/2002 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Nedumangad is in revision against judgment of the appellate authority confirming the order of eviction issued under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control ) Act 1965 ( for short the Act). Landlord sought eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. Eviction order issued under Section 11(2)(b) does not survive for consideration in this revision since it is submitted that the tenant has already remitted the entire arrears of rent. It is open for the tenant to move before the Rent Control Court for setting aside the order of eviction issued under Section 11 (2)(b) on deposit of entire arrears invoking Section 11(2)(c). 2. Eviction was sought under Section 11(3) projecting the need that the landlord requires the schedule building for starting business in rice. According to the landlord, he is conducting the said business at present in a rented building R.C.R.No.236/2010 2 and that he wanted to shift the business to the tenanted premises. The rent control petition was resisted by the tenant contending that the need put forth by the landlord is not genuine and bona fide. It was also contended that income derived out of the business conducted in the petition schedule building is the sole means of livelihood of the tenant and his family, and that no other suitable buildings are available in the locality for shifting the business. Evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked on behalf of the landlord. The tenant was examined as DW1. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on her behalf. Oral and documentary evidence adduced inspired confidence on the rent control court to order eviction finding that the need put forth by the landlord is genuine and bona fide. It was also found that the tenant was not successful in proving that the income derived out of the business carried on in the petition schedule building is the sole means of livelihood and that no other suitable building is available in the locality for shifting the business. 3. In appeal filed by the tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority made a thorough re appreciation of the evidence and R.C.R.No.236/2010 3 concurred with the conclusions arrived by the Rent Control Court. 4. Sri.A.B.Mohana Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous and elaborate arguments assailing the order of eviction passed by the authorities below. According to him, the need projected was not proved as genuine and bona fide. It is contended that the landlord is conducting some business in a building which is owned by him and that the need projected is only a ruse to evict the tenant. It was also contended that there is total misappreciation of evidence adduced with respect to the second proviso to section 11 (3). Eventhough we gave opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence to substantiate the contention that the landlord is conducting very same business at present in a building owned by him, no document could be produced by the revision petitioner. Contention of the revision petitioner/ tenant that the landlord was not successful in proving non availability of other suitable buildings in the locality deserves no merit in view of the settled legal position rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003 (2) KLT 230(FB) . It is R.C.R.No.236/2010 4 totally the burden of the tenant to prove both the ingredients of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. It is held that both the limbs under that proviso are conjunctive in nature. There is no case for the revision petitioner that he had discharged the burden by any conclusive evidence in order to claim protection under the second proviso. On a scanning of the impugned judgment of the appellate Authority as well as the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, we do not find any material illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference in exercise of the attenuated jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. We are not supposed to make any re-apprisal of the evidence on record. The revision petitioner could not point out any manifest omission or misappreciation with respect to the evidence adduced. Hence, we find no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk