IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 RCRev..No. 287 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.7/2004 of RENT CONTROL APELLATE AUTHROITY -I,MAVELIKKARA RCP.2/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------- P.V. GEORGE, PADIPPURAKKAL VEETTIL, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ K.V. UNNI, STATIONARY MERCHANT, LIBERARY STORES, FROM PAZHANJIKUTHOOR VEETIL, KUNNAMKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 287 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing the Rent Control Appeal and dismissing the Rent Control Petition after reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord was that he needs the petition schedule building for own occupation after its reconstruction, so that his dependent daughter can be accommodated. Before the Rent Control Court on behalf of the landlord, the landlord only was examined for proving the bona fides of the claim. But, the de facto claimant, the dependent daughter, was not examined. It is mainly on the reason that it is the dependent daughter, the really needy person, who is competent to testify regarding the bona RCR.No.287/2006 2 fides of the need and that her non examination is fatal that the Appellate Authority interfered with the decision of the Rent Control Court. 2. After hearing both sides for some time, there is agreement at the Bar that an opportunity can be afforded to the landlord for examining his dependent daughter also as a witness. Under the above circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the RCP to the Rent Control Court. That Court is directed to permit the landlord to examine his dependent daughter as a witness on his side. If the landlord adduces further evidence as permitted above, the tenant respondent should also be given opportunity to adduce courter evidence if any. The learned Rent Control Court is directed to take fresh decision on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which comes to be on record pursuant to this judgment at the earliest and at any rate within four months of parties entering appearance before the Rent control Court pursuant to this judgment. The parties will enter appearance before the Rent Control Court on 16/9/2010. Once records are received by this Court, RCR.No.287/2006 3 the same will be retransmitted to the Rent Control Court forthwith. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk