IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 267 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.100/2002 of RENT CONTROL APPELALTE AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE RCP.146/1999 of RENT CONTROL COURT KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER: IN RCR/RESPONDENT IN RCA 100/02 & APPELLANT IN RCA 23/2002 RESPONDENT IN RCP ------------------------------- NARENDRAKUMAR REWACHAND, S/O. RAVICHAND PREMJI, RESIDING AT SILK STREET, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S) IN RCR APPELLANT IN RCA 100/02 & RESPONDENT IN RCA 23/02 PETITIONER IN RCP: --------------- MAKKILAT UMMER HAJI, S/O. MUHAMMED, REPRESENTED BY AND ACTING THROUGH POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER VARAPURATH KUNHALIMA, D/O. MAMU, RESIDING AT VAZHAPOYIL HOUSE, THIKKODE AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 267 OF 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of August, 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 allowing the landlord's appeal ordering eviction under sub section (3) of Section 11 and reversing the negative order which had been passed by the Rent Control Court. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the tenant's appeal and confirmed the order of eviction which had been passed by the rent Control Court under Section 11 (4)(iii). 2. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It was argued by the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.S.V.Balakrishnan Iyer that the finding entered for the first time by the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the need is bona fide is a finding which is the result of a RCR No.267/2005 2 thoroughly erroneous and irregular appreciation of evidence by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Learned senior counsel also submitted that enquiry erroneous is the finding of the Appellate Authority that the revision petitioner is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The learned senior counsel went on to submit that though the findings are concurrent in the context of ground under Section 11 (4)(iii), those findings are also faulty as they have been entered with respect to the buildings belonging to and under the possession of not the revision petitioner tenant but the revision petitioner's father. Those buildings are not vacant buildings. Those buildings are buildings occupied by the revision petitioner's father. The learned senior counsel requested that the impugned judgment be interfered with and the Rent Control Petition be dismissed completely. 3. Per contra, Sri. C.P.Mohammed Nias, learned counsel for the respondent landlord reminded us of the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20. According to him, under the statutory scheme, the Appellate Authority is the final court on facts and unless it can be said that findings entered by that RCR No.267/2005 3 authority are illegal, irregular and improper as contemplated by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, interference will not be justified. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. As the findings are divergent, at least to the extent it relates to the ground under Section 11 (3), we have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and we have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court. We have reminded ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction under Section 20 keeping in mind the binding judicial precedents governing the exercise of the above revisional jurisdiction. According to us, there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 on the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 5. Having gone through the judgment, we are convinced that the findings entered by the learned Appellate Authority in the context of grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) are reasonable findings which are founded on the evidence actually available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory final facts finding authority viz. the Appellate RCR No.267/2005 4 Authority based on evidence, this court is not expected to invoke revisional jurisdiction. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. 6. Sri. Balakrishna Iyer on coming to know of our decision requested that reasonable time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the building. The learned senior counsel submitted that on the facts and circumstances which are available in this case there is justification for granting time till the end of December 2012. The above request is very stiffly opposed by Sri. Mohammed Nias. According to Mr.Nias, if this court is inclined to grant time, the same may be subject to the condition that the revision petitioner pays occupational charges at the rates more than the existing rent rate of Rs.425/- per month. 7. Having considered the rival submissions addressed in the context of time, we feel that even as we dismiss the revision petition confirming the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority, the Execution Court can be directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 31/10/2012 subject to the following conditions; RCR No.267/2005 5 i). The revision petitioner shall discharge arrears of rent if any due at the existing rate of Rs.425/- per mensem within six weeks from today. ii). The revision petitioner shall surrender the building peacefully on or before 31/10/2012 and will file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within one month from today incorporating the assurances to give surrender within a time as ordered above and to pay arrears of rent as stipulated above. iii). In the affidavit the petitioner will also state that with effect from 1/9/2011 he will pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem till he gives actual surrender. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk RCR No.267/2005 6