IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 334 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.14/2007 of ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA RCP.3/2003 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER/TENANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KAMBIYIL VEETTIL, THONDANKULANGARA WARD, ALAPPUZHA (PROPRIETOR, UNNI'S RESTAURANT, Y.M.C.A.ROAD, ALAPPUZHA). BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SMT.K.V.RAMYA SMT.K.V.RAMYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/LAND-LORD: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIBIMON K.GEORGE, S/O.K.S.GEORGE, KUTTIKKATTU VEETTIL, AVALOOKKUNNU WARD, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, (PRINCIPAL, C.R.E. INSTITUTE, Y.M.C.A.ROAD, ALAPPUZHA), PIN-688 542. BY ADV.SRI.E.RAFEEK, CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- R.C.R. No.334 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011. O R D E R PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the revisional judgment passed by the Rent Control appellate authority pursuant to the remand order which was passed by this Court in R.C.R.No.380 of 2010. Under the above remand order, which was authored by one among us (PCK(J), this Court remanded the RCR to the appellate authority to consider and decide the question whether there is any statutory necessity for the landlord to demolish and remove the petition schedule building (tenants of three buildings including the revision petitioner were resisting eviction at that time) for making the construction already completed on the back side of the petition schedule building lawful. Pursuant to the remand order, the landlord produced additional documents A16 to 2 R.C.R. No.334 of 2011 A21 series and examined four witness Pws.4 to 7. PW4 was the Town Planning Officer, PW5 was the Municipal Secretary and PW6 was the P.A. to the Municipal Secretary, the Information Officer in the Municipal Office. PW7 was the photographer who had taken photographs of the petition schedule buildings and the newly constructed building. Advocate Commissioner was also examined as CW1. The learned appellate authority on the basis of appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the landlord is bound to demolish the petition schedule building (as well as the other two buildings) in order to get the completion certificate in respect of the newly constructed building, so that the yards of the newly constructed building will become actually available. Challenging the above judgment of the appellate authority, this revision is filed urging various grounds. 2. Strenuous submissions were addressed before us by Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran learned counsel for the revision petitioner. He addressed arguments referring to Rule 54 of 3 R.C.R. No.334 of 2011 the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It was submitted by Mr.Hariharaputhran that it is mandatory that all buildings should have open yards or parking space of the specifications provided under Clause 3 of the above Rule. The submission of the learned counsel was that even if the petition schedule building and the other buildings which stand in front of the newly constructed building are demolished, the landlord will never be able to provide such parking space and therefore even after the petition schedule building and the other tenanted buildings are demolished, the newly constructed building will continue to be unlawful and the Municipality will not be in a position to issue Completion Certificate. Mr.Hariharaputhran further submitted that, the need projected was to construct a new building for the landlord's own occupation . The above need stands fully accomplished and therefore it is not at all necessary to disturb entrenched tenants, including the revision petitioner, who are conducting business and eaking out their livelihood. The submissions of 4 R.C.R. No.334 of 2011 Sri.Hariharaputhran were resisted very forcefully by Mr.Rafeek learned counsel for the landlord. According to Mr.Rafeek, it was on the strength of Exts.A16 and 16(a) plan that the new building was constructed by the landlord. On the terms of Exts.A16 and 16(a) plan, it is obligatory that the petition schedule building and the tenanted buildings standing in front of the newly constructed building are demolished and removed. Since the demolishen of these buildings was the only condition imposed by the local authority, the local authority will be estopped from contending that the landlord has to comply with other requirements before issuing the Completion Certificate. Obtaining of Completion Certificate is the landlord's problem and the revision petitioner does not have to worry about the same. The counsel incidently submitted that the revision petitioner has kept the rent heavily in arrears and such a tenant is not entitled for any relief at the hands of this Court. 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the 5 R.C.R. No.334 of 2011 submissions addressed at the Bar. The short question that we have to decide is, whether the impugned judgment of the appellate authority warrants any correction, within the contours of our present jurisdiction under Section 20. In our opinion, the above question is to be answered only in the negative. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the appellate court. According to us, the findings entered by the appellate authority are reasonable findings entered after appreciating the evidence and the rival contentions raised. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory appellate authority, this Court is not expected to upset those findings, by venturing upon reappraisal of the evidence. As reasonable findings are rendered by the statutory appellate authority based on evidence, we are not inclined to intervene. The revision will stands dismissed. 4. After we pronounced this order, Mr.Hariharaputhran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested that atleast one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. 6 R.C.R. No.334 of 2011 This request is opposed by Mr.Rafeek who pointed out that among the three tenants who were occupied at the larger portion of the tenanted building, one has already vacated and another has already given up his battle. He also submitted that the enhanced monthly rent of Rs.750/- refixed by this Court is very low, when it is considered that this building is situated in a very commercially important area in Alleppey having an extent of 800 sq. ft. Notwithstanding the arguments raised by Mr.Rafeek, we feel that we will be justified in granting the revision petitioner time till 31.3.2012 for surrendering the premises subject to the following conditions :- The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent/ landlord on or before 31.3.2012 and undertaking further to discharge the entire arrears of rent as 7 R.C.R. No.334 of 2011 alleged by the landlord due as on date within one month from today and also undertaking that he will pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem w.e.f. 1.10.2011 till such time as the building is surrendered. We make it clear that if the affidavit is filed before the Execution court on time, the delivery will be adjourned to 1.4.2012 and if surrender is not reported on that day, the court will take steps for delivery, forthwith. If the affidavit is not filed on time, the court will be justified in ordering the delivery immediately. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/