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 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 48 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.15/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, PALAKKAD RCP.1/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- S.D.PHARMACY, DEVASTHANA BHAVANAM ALAPPUZHA TOWN, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY K.RAMESH, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- N.SARASWATHY, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. N.RAJAN, R.V.C.ROAD, VALLENGI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 1010. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 48 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. M/s.S.D.Pharmacy, the revision petitioner, is aggrieved by the order of eviction concurrently passed in respect of the building in which their Chittur Branch is accommodated. The landlady sought for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The ground of arrears of rent does not survive for consideration as eviction under that ground was averted by the tenant by liquidating the arrears during the pendency of the proceedings. The need projected by the landlady under Section 11(3) was that her family is finding it difficult to pull on with the pension of her husband who retired as Veterinary Doctor from Government Service and the meagre rent which she is getting from her tenants and therefore, she RCR.No.48/2011 2 needs the building for starting business in hardware and sanitary ware. 2. The bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that the claim is only a ruse to evict the tenant so that thereafter the building can be let out on a higher rent to the new tenants. It was pointed out that adjacent to the petition schedule building, there is another larger building belonging to the landlady occupied by one Achutha Pharmacy and if the need is bona fide, the landlady could have sought to evict the tenant of that building rather than the petition schedule building which is small in size. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, which consisted of oral evidence of landlady as PW1, Exts.A1 series and the oral evidence of RW1 and commission report Ext.C1, came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide. On the basis of that conclusion, the eviction order was passed. 3. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the tenant and reappraised the evidence and reiterated all the findings of the Rent control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the order of eviction was confirmed. RCR.No.48/2011 3 4. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments on the basis of all those grounds. Reading over to us the evidence of PW1, it was submitted that the landlady does not have any money to invest in business and that she is not even prepared to examine any one of her brothers who, according to her, will provide her with capital amounts for investment in the proposed business. It was highlighted that the building adjacent to the petition schedule building, wherein Achutha Pharmacy is presently functioning, is mere ideal for conducting the proposed business and the action of the landlady in choosing the petition schedule building for eviction is actuated by oblique motives. The learned counsel read over to us certain portions of the oral evidence adduced by PW1, which would indicate that contrary to the landlady's claim in the RCP, she is without any experience in the matter of conduct of business. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have gone RCR.No.48/2011 4 through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We remind ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction under Section 20 in which we are presently sitting. 6. It is well known that in the present revisional jurisdiction, this court is not expected to reappraise the evidence for the purpose of arriving at different factual conclusions than the conclusions arrived at by the statutory fact finding authorities especially when such conclusions have been arrived at concurrently. Having gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the conclusions therein regarding the bona fides of the claim are arrived at on the basis of evidence which is available on record. The oral evidence of PW1, the landlady, inspired the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We are not much impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel that the landlady does not have the financial ability. It is seen that the very contention of the tenant was that the landlady is very affluent and does not require to do any business as she is already having lots of money. True, contrary to what was RCR.No.48/2011 5 pleaded in the Rent Control Petition, the landlady confessed that she does not have any experience. It is not even suggested in cross examination that due to any physical or mental incapacity, the landlady will not be able to conduct business . After all one has to start doing something for gaining experience. We are sure that even if the landlady does not have immediate experience, she will be able to start business with the assistance of talented persons. 7. It is true that it has come out in evidence that the building occupied by Achutha Pharmacy is bigger in size than the petition schedule building. But, the law allows a certain amount of latitude to the landlady in picking and choosing one among her various tenants when she has more than one tenant for accomplishing her need for own occupation. At least one reason, which weighed with the landlady for choosing the petition schedule building, is discernible from the evidence . The tenant, who is conducting Achutha Pharmacy, unlike the revision petitioner, was prompt in the matter of payment of rent. The short question that arises for decision by us is whether it can be said that the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under RCR.No.48/2011 6 the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, suffers from any irregularity, illegality or impropriety. The above question can be answered only in the negative. The revision petition fails and will stand dismissed. 6. Considering the fervent appeal of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner for grant of one and half year's time for surrendering the premises, we direct the Execution Court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 31/10/2011 subject to the following conditions; The General Manager or any other person competent to represent the revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlady on or before 31/10/2011 and undertaking to discharge the arrears of rent, if any, within one month and to pay RCR.No.48/2011 7 occupational charges at the current rent rate without fail till actual surrender is made. We make it clear that the tenant will get the benefit of time allowed as above only if affidavit as directed above is filed and the undertakings therein are complied with. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk