IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 R.C.Rev..No. 73 of 2003 ----------------------- RCA.9/1999 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM RCP.18/1995 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PETNRS.IN RCP: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UMADEVI AMMA, D/O. GOMATHY AMMA, PUNNOOR VEEDU, MURUNTHAL CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE. 2. GOMATHY AMMA OF -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.SHINOD.G.P SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH RESPONDENT : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RCP: ------------------------------------------- UPENDRAN, MUTHEDATHU BUNGLOW, ASHTAMUDI, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R1 SRI.A.RASHID FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.73 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October 2010 ORDER Basheer, J. About 15 years ago, the two ladies before us instituted a petition seeking eviction of the tenanted premises invoking Section 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The primary ground of eviction as projected in the petition was under Section 11(3) of the Act. Petitioners/landladies, who are co-owners, pleaded that the tenanted premise comprising six rooms on the ground floor, were required for the bona fide own occupation of petitioner No.2, who is none other than the daughter of petitioner No.1, to start a garment making unit. 2. The claim for eviction was understandably resisted by respondent herein very stoutly. However, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. The order of eviction was passed in September 1998. 3. The tenant preferred an appeal against the above order in 1999. The appeal remained pending on the file of the appellate authority for four years. By judgment dated February 28, 2003 the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the tenant and dismissed the Rent Control Petition. Hence this revision petition. 4. Seven years have passed after institution of this revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the R.C.R.No.73 OF 2003 :: 2 :: impugned judgment passed by the appellate authority is liable to be interfered with and the matter will have to be remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. 5. The appellate authority noticed that just prior to the institution of the eviction petition, the land ladies had filed a suit for injunction against the tenant to restrain him from carrying out certain alterations/modifications in the tenanted premises without their consent. Ad-interim order of injunction was passed by the Munsiff Court in the suit. However, it appears that the defendant/tenant pointed out that the landladies had mentioned in the plaint that the rent of the building was Rs.1500/- per month though it was actually Rs.500/- only. He alleged that a forged or fabricated rent deed had been produced by the landladies in the suit in order to mislead the court. Anyhow, the landladies withdrew the suit after instituting the present eviction petition. 6. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority will show that the above civil litigation between the parties has very heavily weighed with the learned Judge. A major portion of the judgment has been devoted to this aspect. The learned Judge tested the bonafides of the landladies in the back drop of the above civil litigation. After completing that exercise, the learned Judge turned his attention to Exts.A4 to A8 documents. Ext.A4 was a license obtained by petitioner No.2 to start a small scale unit. Ext.A8 was the renewal of the said license. Exts.A6 and A7 were related to the loan advanced by a bank to start the unit. R.C.R.No.73 OF 2003 :: 3 :: 7. After referring to these documents, the appellate authority proceeded to observe that petitioner No.2 had apparently started the business in readymade garments already in the upstair portion of the building. According to the learned Judge, the above business was not started at the time of institution of the petition as is evident from these documents and obviously they came into existence after “the dispute arose between the parties”. After making this observation, the learned Judge proceeded to accept the contention of the tenant that these documents were created for the purpose of filing a petition for eviction and therefore the need alleged by the landladies cannot be said to be bonafide. We have referred to the above conclusions made by the appellate authority only to indicate that the learned Judge had seemingly attached great importance to the civil litigation. We are not making any further observation or comment on the manner in which the learned Judge has approached the issue. 8. While adverting to the contention of the tenant that the landladies were in possession of some other buildings not only of their own but also that of their relatives in the vicinity of the petition scheduled building, the appellate authority found that the said contention is without any merit or substance. As regards the claim made by the landladies that they intended to make suitable modification to the building, the appellate authority observed that the report of the Advocate Commissioner indicated that such a conversion or modification was not feasible or advisable. We refrain from making any observation on this aspect at this stage. In our view,the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. R.C.R.No.73 OF 2003 :: 4 :: 9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. If the parties want to adduce further evidence in the matter, it will be open to them to do so. The appellate authority shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Parties shall appear before the court below on 12th November, 2010. Registry shall send back the lower court records to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam forthwith. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes/pm