IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 RCRev..No. 289 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.87/2002 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.157/1999 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/SUPL.RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. JUGA BHAI, W/O. LATE THARAYIL VASUDEVAN, AGED 64 YEARS, SWASTHAM, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, THAYYIL HOUSE, PAYYANAKKAL P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SUDHA BHAI, D/O. LATE VASUDEVAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KALLAMBALATH HOUSE, NEAR SARADHA MANDIR, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. THEJASSI BHAI, D/O. LATE VASUDEVAN, AGED 29 YEARS, KATHOTH POYERI HOUSE MANAKKADAVU, PANTHEERANKAVU AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. BHYJU LAL, S/O. LATE VASUDEVAN, AGED 26 YEARS, BUSINESS, THERYIL HOUSE, PAYYANAKKAL POST, PANNIYANKAR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------- P.C. NARENDRAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, AGED 59 YEARS, BUSINESS, 3/1020, CHETTYKANDI HOUSE DISTRICT BUNGALOW ROAD, KACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.A.P.GANGADHARAN,KOZHIKODE SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 289 OF 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. It is seen that notice is served on the landlord respondent by publication in ' Pradeepam'. The name of the respondent is called. He is absent. It is declared that the respondent is duly served. 2. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner on the ground of cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v). 3. We have gone through the order of the rent control court and the judgment of the appellate authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. We notice that the finding entered by that authority, that the building in question has not been occupied by the revision petitioner continuously for more than six months prior to the filing of the RCP, has RCR.No.289/2005 2 been entered on the basis of correct evaluation of the evidence which consisted inter alia of Ext.C1 commission report, inspiring oral evidence of PW1 and even the evidence of RW1, the present tenant. Under Ext.C1, the commissioner reported that the room in question was practically empty but for waste materials. The report did suggest that the room was not in use for storage of any stock in trade as claimed by the tenant. The report further shows that the veranda of the room was full of cobwebs and termites and that even in shutters termites were seen. The conclusion of the learned appellate authority that Ext. C1 suggested non occupation of the tenant at the tenanted premises for a considerable long period, in our view is reasonable. The total absence of documents including the availability of a trade licence by the tenant(who had a licence earlier) is another circumstance relied on by the appellate authority to come to the conclusion that there is cessation of occupation without reasonable cause. As noticed by the appellate authority, if as a matter of fact, the claim of the tenant that he was conducting business in the premises was correct, there would have been some documents. Total absence RCR.No.289/2005 3 of documentary evidence is a circumstance rightly relied on by the authority to justify its conclusion. In this revisional jurisdiction this court is not expected ordinarily to reappraise the evidence and substitute conclusions on facts especially when conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities are concurrent and reasonable. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for one year's time to surrender the premises. We do not think that we will be justified in granting so much of time in the present case where the finding of the authorities below is that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building. However, in deference to the request of the learned counsel, we are inclined to grant six months time from today subject to the following conditions; The petitioner tenant shall discharge the entire arrears of rent due in respect of the petition scheudle building till date at the contract rate found by the rent control court in its order within a period of one month from today. If receipt against above payment is not noticed by the Execution Court, the RCR.No.289/2005 4 Execution Court can straight away order delivery. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk