IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No. 82 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.122/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THALASSERY RCP.257/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT,KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- C.K.SADIQUE, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 49 YEARS,BUSINESS, CHERIYA KOMATH HOUSE, M.T.WARD, P.O.THANA, KANNUR-12, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ P.ZAREENA, W/O.A.M.HASHIM,AGED 36 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, PALOT HOUSE, PO.THANA, KANNUR012, KANNUR DT. ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH FOR R SRI.K.BABU SRI.K.BABU FOR R THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 82 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision challenging the order of eviction concurrently passed against him on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The tenant was sought to be evicted on the ground of sub letting also. But the petition for eviction on the ground of sub letting was concurrently declined and hence, that ground does not any longer survive for consideration. The need projected by the landlady was that the building is required bona fide for the occupation of her husband, who was dependent on her for a building so that he can conduct business in glass etching (designing). The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant, who also contended that the Rent Control Petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first and second provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. Before the Rent Control Court, apart from other evidence, the husband of the landlady was examined as PW1. The evidence adduced by PW1 inspired the Rent Control RCR.No. 82/2010 2 Court. That court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that need was bona fide and that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso. It was also concluded that the landlady is not in possession of any building which will take the case within the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. The Appellate Authority made a through reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and accordingly confirmed the order of eviction. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us extensively on the basis of all those grounds. The learned counsel highlighted that PW1 has already reached the evening stage of his life. When such a man comes forward with a case that he wants to do business, he was expected to raise sufficient pleadings as to what he had been thitherto doing. There is absence of such pleadings in this case. It is only when he mounted the box as PW1, that he gave details as to what he was doing previously and as to why he is presently thinking in RCR.No. 82/2010 3 terms of commencing a business. Sri.Mohamed Mustaque also submitted that the definite case of the tenant was that PW1 is conducting a hotel in Bangalore. It came out in evidence from the mouth of PW1 that he was doing hotel business in Bangalore. But, his explanation was that the hotel is now closed. No evidence (except oral) was adduced to show that the hotel is actually closed. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the authorities below concurrent though, they may be is irregular, illegal or improper and warrants correction under Section 20. 4. All the submissions of Sri.Mohammed Mustaque were resisted by Sri.K.Babu, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent landlady. Sri.K.Babu reminded us of the contours of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20 and submitted that when the findings of the Appellate Authority are founded on evidence and are reasonable findings, this court is not expected to re appreciate the evidence and substitute conclusion of facts already entered into by the fact finding authorities. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have also gone through the testimony RCR.No. 82/2010 4 of PW1, a copy of which was supplied to us by the learned counsel. We are of the view that despite searching cross examination, the tenant was unable to show that the Rent Control Petition is actuated by any oblique motives. According to us, there is no warrant for interfering with the concurrent findings of facts entered by the authorities below, particularly the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. The same is the position as regards the findings regarding the applicability of the two provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. 6. As his last plea, Sri.Mohamed Mustaque requested that the tenant be given at least 18 months' time to surrender the premises. The above request is very stiffly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady. He submitted that granting of more than six months time will be unjust. Having anxiously considered the above submissions of the learned counsel both regarding the merits of the RCR and also regarding the request for time, we are of the view that the following can be the result of the RCR. i). The RCR is dismissed. RCR.No. 82/2010 5 ii), The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/3/2011 subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent or PW1 on or before 31/3/2011 and undertaking further through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month from today and that with effect from 1st May 2010 he will pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month till the date of the surrender. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit as directed above is filed within the time limit mentioned above RCR.No. 82/2010 6 and the direction regarding payment of occupational charges is also complied with regularly. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. dpk