IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 215 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.29/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KOZHIKODE-III RCP.34/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURAT KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- VADUVANKARA ELOTH HASSAN, AGED 59, S/O. KAMMAD, RESIDING AT VELIPRAM AMSOM, KARINKALLAI DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. FATHIMA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. PULIYALI MARAKKAR, RESIDING AT CHATTIPURAYIL HOUSE, PETTA, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. AYISHA JASNA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. PULIYALI MARAKKAR, RESIDING AT CHATTIPURAYIL HOUSE, PETTA, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 3. AYISHA RAJNA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. PULIYALI MARAKKAR, RESIDING AT CHATTIPURAYIL HOUSE, PETTA, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 4. AYISHA RAHNA, AGED 365 YEARS, D/O. PULIYALI MARAKKAR, RESIDING AT CHATTIPURAYIL HOUSE, PETTA, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 5. ABDUL VARIS, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. PULIYALI MARAKKAR, RESIDING AT CHATTIPURAYIL HOUSE, PETTA, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 6. AYISHA RUBNA AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. PULIYALI MARAKKAR, RESIDING AT CHATTIPURAYIL HOUSE, PETTA, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.215 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He was sought to be evicted on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11 (2) (b), bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3), misuser of the building in a manner so as to cause value and utility of the building to be materially and permanently reduced under Section 11 (4)(ii) and the ground that the tenant has other buildings reasonably sufficient for his purpose in the same city, town, or village under Section 11 (4)(iii). The tenant by filing objections disputed the existence of all these grounds. The parties went for trial and the Rent Control Court on analysing the evidence would decline the eviction which was sought for under Section 11 (4)(iii) and order eviction on the other three grounds. 2. The learned Appellate Authority on considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner would vacate the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b), but confirmed the RCR.No.215/2011 2 order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3) and 11 (4)(ii). 3. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) and 11 (4)(ii) and Sri.Mohammed Nias, learned counsel for the revision petitioner tenant addressed us very strenuously on the basis of those grounds. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed by the learned counsel. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. However, in view of the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction under Section 20, we feel that there is no warrant for interference with the judgment of the final fact finding authority, the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The finding entered by the learned authority that eviction ground under Section 11(3) exists and that the rent control petition is not liable to fail by virtue of any of the provisos to sub section (3) of Section is a finding entered on the basis of the evidence which is available on record. The same is the position as regards the eviction order passed under Section 11 (4) (ii). We feel that the finding regarding the existence of ground under Section 11 (4)(ii) is based on the cogent evidence including the report submitted RCR.No.215/2011 3 by the Advocate Commissioner on the basis of the local inspection conducted by him. The revision necessarily has to fail. The revision petition is dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk