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 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 RCRev..No. 39 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.27/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM RCP.111/2004 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM) .................... PETITIONERS/APPLLENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. P.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 77, S/O.MEPPARAMBATH, NARAYANAN MENOKI, SHOP NO.XXI/342, STATUE JUNCTION TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301, RESIDING IN AYILLILAN MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, VARIAMPURAM ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SMT. M.RAJESWARI, AGED 68,W/O.P.NANDAKUMAR RE. -DO- 2. MRS.MINI NANDAKUMAR, AGED 46, W/O.MINI ENTERPRISES, XXI/341,342, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA- 682 301. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ MRS.HEMALATHA TAMPURAN, AGED 77, PALACE NO.10, SREENIKETAN, SREE POORNATHARAYESA TEMPLE ROAD, EAST FORT, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R SRI.KAYALATT KUTTYKRISHNAN FOR R THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 39 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 25 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant and the alleged sub tenant are in revision. They were sought to be evicted on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation, sub letting and the ground that the tenant has used the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently. Even though serious contentions were raised, the learned Rent Control Court after enquiry came to the conclusion that the landlord was able to prove that all the eviction grounds invoked by the landlord did exist in the case. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court allowed the RCP on all the grounds and ordered eviction. 2. The revision petitioners preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority made a through reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. 3. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have RCR.No.39/2010 2 been raised by the petitioners assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. Sri.P.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the tenants/revision petitioners addressed us very strenuously on the basis of all those grounds. 4. All the submissions of Sri. Viswanathan were resisted by Sri.P.Kutty Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the same. We are of the view that having regard to the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, there is no scope for invocation of that jurisdiction for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on fact. We notice that findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority regarding the existence of statutory grounds are all findings entered on the basis of the evidence which is available on record. That being so, it cannot be stated that there is illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgment of the Appellate authority as envisaged under Section 20. The revision necessarily has to fail. RCR.No.39/2010 3 5. The learned counsel Sri.P.Viswanathan, as his last submission, requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioners for surrendering the premises. His request is very stiffly opposed by Sri.Kutty Krishnan. According to him, there is no justification for granting more than three months time. However, we feel that, on the facts and circumstances which attend on this case, there is justification for granting time till 30/11/2010 subject to certain conditions. 6. The result of the above discussion is as follows; i). The RCR is dismissed. ii). The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 30/11/2010 subject to the following conditions. Both the revision petitioners shall file affidavits before the Execution Court or before 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 on or before RCR.No.39/2010 4 30/11/2010. It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any will be discharged within one month and occupational charges with effect from 1st March 2010 at the rate of Rs.600/- per month will also be paid on the first of every month till such time as the building is surrendered. It is needless to mention that the revision petitioners will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk