IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 RCRev..No. 218 of 2009() --------------------------------- RCA.23/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.35/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- G.SARASWATHI AMMA, W/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, HOUSE-WIFE, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, T.C.4/2630 (1) KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ PETITIONER -------------------------- MEENAKSHI AMMA, W/O. C.S. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PARVATHY NIVAS, VAZHAYILA KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 BY ADVS.MR .K.JAYAKUMAR, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.2823/2009 IN RCR. NO.218/2009 DISMISSED 10.02.2010 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- Rent Control Revision. No.218 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 O R D E R --------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The tenant of a commercial building is in revision challenging order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Parties will be referred as landlady and tenant. Need projected by the landlady in the Rent Control Petition is that tenant was conducting hotel business and the landlady wants to pull down that building and put up a building for residential occupation by her son. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence which consisted of Ext.A1 to A11, B1 to B13, C1 and C1(a), PW1 and 2 and CPW1 to 3 came to the conclusion that the need was not bonafide. Accordingly the Rent Control Petition was dismissed. The Appellate Authority however did a thorough re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady was a bonafide one in all respects. That authority also concurred with the Rent Control Court and held that tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that she satisfies both RCR.218/09-C 2 ingredients of second proviso to Section 11(3). Thus in reversal of the decision of the Rent Control Court order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3). 2. In this revision filed under Section 20 various grounds have been raised by the tenant and Sri.G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very extensive arguments before us on the basis of all those grounds. According to him there was no warrant at all for interfering with the finding of the Rent Control Court and that the need is not bonafide. The need is an artificial one. That kind of need is urged only for the purpose of evicting the tenant. The appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority was improper, so submitted the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. All the submissions of the counsel for revision petitioner were resisted by Sri.P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the landlady. He reminded us of the contours of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 and submitted that it is not possible to say that there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20. We have anxiously considered rival submissions. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 3. Under the statutory scheme the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the final court on facts and this court is RCR.218/09-C 3 not expected to interfere with the factual findings entered by that authority when they are founded on evidence. We notice that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the need projected i.e: to construct a new house is bonafide as it is founded on evidence adduced by the landlady as PW1 and her dependent son as PW2. That authority has properly appreciated their evidence and came to the conclusion that the mother landlady was justified in seeking eviction for the need of her son for the purpose of a new house to be built therein. Having gone through the impugned judgment we are of the confirmed view that there is no warrant for interference. As for the finding that the tenant is not entitled to second proviso we notice that the above finding is virtually concurrent. There is no warrant for interference for that finding also within the contours of our revisional jurisdiction. 4. As a last plea learned counsel for revision petitioner sought for one year's time. This requested is opposed by Mr.Krishnan. However, considering the request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners for time being granted for vacating the premises, we feel circumstances warrant grant of time till September subject to certain conditions. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the Rent RCR.218/09-C 4 Control Revision is dismissed confirming the order passed under Section 11(3). The execution court is directed not to order delivery of the petition schedule building to the respondents till 15.9.2010 subject to the following conditions:- Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court or Rent Control Court as the case may be within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent on or before 15.9.2010 and the petitioner shall also make an undertaking through the same affidavit that she will discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and will pay occupational charges at the current rent rate till she gives actual surrender. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted by this order only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb