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 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 247 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.17/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR RCP.14/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------- K.P. JACOB, KOORAN VEEDU, KOTHAKULANGARA, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT --------------- LAJI JOSEPH, PUTHUPARA HOUSE, KIDANGOOR, THURAVUR. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN FOR R1 SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.247 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord , an Octogenarian, aggrieved by the order of the Rent control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority declining eviction which was sought under Sub Section 3 of Section 11 ( bonafide own occupation) is the revision petitioner. The landlord's case was that the building in which he himself was carrying on business was taken over by the government for the purpose of four laning of the National Highway and hence he bonafide needs the petition schedule room for him to conduct own business. The bonafides of the need and the claim were resisted by the tenant. It was contended by the tenant in the alternative that the Rent Control Petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 11. It was also contended that the tenant is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 11. 2. The Rent Control Court on an evaluation of the evidence RCR.No.247/05 2 concluded that the claim of the landlord, an Octogenerian, that he wants to conduct business cannot be bonafide. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the landlord also agreed with the Rent Control Court. That Authority went further and held that even if the claim is bonafide , the Rent Control Petition cannot succeed since the landlord had admitted in his evidence that he was having other vacant buildings of his own in his possession and there was no special reason justifying order of eviction under Sub Section 3 of Section 11. Thus the order of the Rent Control Court declining order was confirmed. 3. Even though Sri.P.Santhalingam , learned senior counsel addressed us strenuously on all the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision, we are not persuaded to hold that the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority suffers from infirmities warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. This court normally does not reappraise the evidence or substitute this court's conclusions on facts for the conclusions of fact entered by the fact finding authority. Under the statutory scheme, the RCR.No.247/05 3 Appellate Authority is the final court on facts. We find that the findings of that authority are founded on evidence. Those findings cannot be said to be unreasonable. But in this court, the landlord has filed documents and filed an application for amendment of RCP so as to incorporate an additional ground of sub letting. The photographs produced by the landlord will indicate that some new venture is allowed to be conducted in a portion of the petition schedule building. But according to us, allowing amendment will amount to enabling the landlord to bye-pass the mandatory provision of issuing notice under Section 11(4)(i). We therefore are of the view that even if the ground of sub letting is available to the landlord, it is a fresh cause of action and the landlord can seek relief based on that cause of action by initiating fresh RCP. We permit the landlord to file fresh RCP invoking the ground of sub letting and for that matter any other available ground. 4. We are told that the total carpet area of the rooms will be around 1476 sq.ft. The rooms we are understand is situated in a commercially important area of the Angamaly Municipal town which is a bustling town in Ernakulam district. The current rent of Rs.2300/- is RCR.No.247/05 4 certainly far below the fair rent which the building may fetch. We tentatively refix the rent of the building at Rs. 5000/- per month prospectively with effect from 01/09/2009. The tenant/respondent shall pay rent at that rate with effect from 01/09/2009. We clarify that this tentative fixation of rent is subject to the right of either of the parties to move the competent court for fixation of fair rent of the petition schedule building . RCR is dismissed subject to tentative fixation of rent payable by the respondent. but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.247/05 5