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 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 37 of 2011 ----------------------- RCA.11/2003 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOLLAM RC OP.19/2000 of MUN-MAGI COURT, S.PARAVOOR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPLLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ RAJENDRAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, PUTHUVILA VEEDU, KOONAYIL, PARAVUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------- BHASKARAN PILLAI, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, K.B.BHAVAN, POCHAVILA VEEDU, KALAKKODU CHERRY, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691334 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.37 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the statutory authorities under Section 11 (3). The landlord had invoked grounds of arrears of rent and the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord under Section 11 (3) was that he needs the building for accommodating his son Rameshan so that Rameshan can conduct “a business” in the petition schedule building. Though the tenant had indicated through the statement of objections that due to the non-disclosure of the type of business proposed to be conducted, some prejudice has been caused to the tenant. R. C. R. No.37 of 2011 -2- It appears that the above defence was not seriously pursued. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the first instance ordered eviction under Section 11(3) despite the fact that Rameshan, the needy son was not examined. This Court however, on considering RCR.367/05 preferred by the tenant, set aside the eviction order and remanded RCA to the Appellate Authority permitting the landlord to examine the son. Accordingly, the son was examined as RW3. The Appellate Authority on appreciating the entire evidence including the evidence adduced by son as PW3 has under the impugned judgment ordered eviction. It is submitted by Smt.T.S.Maya, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Court has now been discharged by the tenant and that the tenant is prepared to move the Rent Control Court by appropriate applications under Section 11(2)(c) for getting that eviction order vacated. Under the above R. C. R. No.37 of 2011 -3- circumstances, in this revision, we need be concerned only with the correctness of the order of eviction against the revision petitioner under Section 11(3). 2. According to Smt.Maya, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the need is not at all bona fide. The non- disclosure of the type of business proposed to be conducted by the son itself is indicative of absence of bona fides. Smt.Maya would read over to us the evidence adduced by PW1 and PW3 and submit that the conflicting versions spoken to by these two witnesses will show that the landlord/PW1 cannot boast of much credibility. When the landlord's evidence is found to be false, the authorities will not be justified in granting relief to the landlord who is seeking eviction. Smt.Maya would however, fairly concede that the benefit of second proviso to Section 11(3) was not specifically claimed in the RCP. 3. We have very anxiously considered the submissions R. C. R. No.37 of 2011 -4- of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have appreciated the evidence adduced by PW1 and PW3. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. Shorn of details the case is that the father the petitioner in the RCP needs the building for accommodating his son PW3/ Rameshan. It has become evident that Rameshan is 34 years old even at the time of his examination. It is also in evidence that for some time Rameshan was in Kuwait. Though the tenant would assert in evidence that Rameshan continues to be in Kuwait, Rameshan's evidence is otherwise. He even conceded that he is prepared to surrender his passport before the court. One of the submissions of Smt.Maya was that even though a petition was filed by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority for summoning the Passport Officer as a witness for proving the defence that Rameshan is permanently R. C. R. No.37 of 2011 -5- employed in Kuwait, the Appellate Authority did not pass any orders on the application. The learned counsel fervently requested that the judgment of the Appellate Authority be set aside and the matter be remanded with directions to allow the above application. 4. The question that arises for decision is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed in favour the landlord under Section 11(3) warrants interference within the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. According to us, the above question can be answered only in the negative. Ordinarily this Court sitting in revision is not expected to re-appraise the evidence and substitute factual conclusions arrived at by the statutory fact finding authorities especially when they are founded on evidence and are entered concurrently. Having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final R. C. R. No.37 of 2011 -6- court on facts, we find that the findings therein are founded on evidence available on record and correctly appreciated by the Appellate Authority. As already stated, the full text of PW3's evidence was read over to us by Smt.Maya. We do not think that any serious challenge is made on the credibility of PW3 in cross examination. Even before us, the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that PW3 is permanently employed in Kuwait and the present claim is only a ruse for evicting the tenant. We feel that appropriate safeguards can be incorporated in our oder in the context of the apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the RCR will fail and will stand dismissed. The execution court is directed, however, to insist on PW3 producing his passport before that court before ordering delivery of the petition schedule building. The execution court is also, however, R. C. R. No.37 of 2011 -7- directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery for a period of four months from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-