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 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 392 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.59/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELALTE AUTHORITY , ALAPPUZHA RCP.8/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT ,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER/TENANT (S): -------------------- E.K.KAMAR, S/O. ISMAIL KUNJU, KAMAR MANZIL LAJANATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA CHAKKAS MEDICALS, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (ELOOR) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/LANDLORD: --------------- HABEEN, S/O. ABDUL KARIM, BUNGALAVU PARAMBIL ZACHARIA BAZAAR, ALAPPUZHA. 688001. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, ALONG WITH R.C.R. NO.391/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos.391 & 392 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 O R D E R Abdul Rehim, J. These revision petitions are filed by tenants occupying two rooms in a larger edifice owned by a common landlord. In these revision petitions filed under Section 20 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, challenge is against a common order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (3) of the Act in these two cases along with another Rent Control Petition, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The need projected by the landlord is that he wants to start Hotel business in the three tenanted rooms by removing the partition walls and by making it suitable for conduct of a Hotel business. It was contended that the landlord has got sufficient experience in the filed of the business and that he has got no other building available in his ownership or possession for starting the business intended. The Rent Control Petitions were opposed by the revision petitioners/tenants contending that the need put forth is not bona fide since the 2nd RCR.No.391 & 392/2011 2 respondent landlord himself was conducting hotel business earlier in one of the rooms which he had stopped finding that the business was not feasible. It was also contended that two other rooms which were available in vacant possession of the landlord were sold in the year 2005, prior to filing of the Rent Control Petitions. The revision petitioners also sought protection under the second proviso to section 11 (3) of the Act. 2. Evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A13 and oral testimony of PW1, the landlord. On behalf of the tenants Exts .B1 to B7 were marked and CPW1 to CPW4 were examined. After elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the need put forth by the landlord is genuine and bona fide, and that the landlord is not having any other building in his ownership and possession suitable for accomplishing the need projected. It was also found that the tenants were not successful in establishing the ingredients required for for ordering protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority on a total reappraisal of the evidence on record concurred with the conclusions arrived by the RCR.No.391 & 392/2011 3 Rent Control Court and affirmed the findings. 3. Sri.George Mathew learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners presented various contentions to assail the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, as well as the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. In the attenuated jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, we are not supposed to have a reappraisal of the evidence. Even then, on a perusal of the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court and on a quick reappraisal of the evidence on record, we do not find any material to entertain these revision petitions because the findings of the courts below are based on strong reasonings. No material illegality, irregularity or impropriety is pointed out warranting interference of this court . Under the above mentioned circumstances, these revision petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk RCR.No.391 & 392/2011 4