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 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 295 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.5/2011 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TRIVANDRUM RCP.66/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER-PETITIONERS (S): -------------------- 1. D.L.SARALA, W/O.GOPINATHAN T.C. 28/2865 (1) NEAR SAHODARA SAMAJAM, VANCHIYOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.G. JAYASREEKALA, D/O.GOPINATHAN T.C. 28/2865 (1) NEAR SAHODARA SAMAJAM, VANCHIYOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. G.S.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN T.C. 28/2865 (1) NEAR SAHODARA SAMAJAM, VANCHIYOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. G.S.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN T.C. 28/2865 (1) NEAR SAHODARA SAMAJAM, VANCHIYOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- BHASKARAN NAIR, S/O. SARASWATHY AMMA, T.C. 3/466 (1), T.K.DIVAKARAN ROAD, OPPOSITE MENON'S COLONY, MUTTADA P.O. KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 295 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Abdul Rehim, J. The tenants of a building, who suffered eviction orders concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority on the grounds under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, are in revision before this court challenging the said orders. 2. On evaluation of the contentions raised as well as on a quick re-appraisal of the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that in the attenuated jurisdiction conferred on this court under Section 20 of the Act, no interference is warranted. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the petitioners have failed to make payment of arrears of rent, even after issuing the statutory notice. It is also found that the bona fide need claimed for own occupation of the building by the daughter of the landlord was most genuine and bona fide. The courts below concurrently found that provisos to section 11(3) of the Act against the tenants. RCR.No.295/2011 2 3. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety with the findings in the impugned judgment of the appellate authority warranting interference of this revisional court. 4. However, Smt.Zohara learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners addressed arguments contending that the eviction order under Section 11(2)(b) was issued without considering the payments of major portion of the arrears of rent deposited by the tenants before the Munsiff Court in a suit filed against the forceful eviction, which was contested between the parties. We are of the opinion that the tenants can be at liberty to raise such contention before the Rent Control Court as and when they invoke provisions under Section 11 (2)(c). Needless to say, if any such contention is raised, then that court will look into the same and take appropriate decision. The revision petition deserves no merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the revision petition. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk