IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No.150 of 2010 --------------------------- RCA.169/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.1/2001 of RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF),KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- K.SURAN,S/O.ACHUTHAN,AGED 52 YEARS, GOLDSMITH, NEAR HYDROSS MOSQUE, KAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- THACHANKANDY PUTHIYAPURAYIL SULAIKHA, W/O.C.M.HYDER ALI, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUZHATHI AMSOM KAKKAD DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the order of eviction passed concurrently against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground under Sub Section 3 of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. Eviction was sought for by the respondent/ landlord on the ground of arrears of rent also. But since the entire arrears alleged was cleared off by the tenant before the RCP came up for trial, the Rent Control Court did not order eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. That order has attained R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -2- finality. Therefore, in this revision we need be concerned only with the correctness of the order of eviction passed under Sub Section 3 of Section 11. 2. The need projected by the landlady was that the building is needed bona fide for occupation by her husband who was presently without any employment or avocation so that he could start and conduct grocery business therein. The bona fides of the need was stiffly disputed by the revision petitioner/tenant highlighting three points. The first point was that the landlady is financially very sound and her husband is therefore not in need of conducting grocery business. The second point was that the landlady's husband is already conducting transport business R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -3- and therefore, there is no necessity for him to conduct the proposed business. The third point which was highlighted was that way back in 1991 the selfsame need had been projected by the landlady through a lawyer notice, but the landlady did not pursue that need. Before the Rent Control Court the landlady's husband was examined as PW1 and his evidence inspired the Rent Control Court. Appreciating the entire evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, B1 to B8, PW1 and RW1, the Rent Control Court concluded that the need projected was a bona fide one. The tenant had claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies the two ingredients of the R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -4- said proviso and accordingly, held that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed. An appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner against the order of the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority re-appraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Thus, that authority confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the RCA. 3. In this revision under Section 20, the tenant has raised various grounds challenging the eviction order and Sri.M.V.Amaresan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us based on those grounds. He highlighted before us the three points which were highlighted before the Appellate R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -5- Authority also to show that the need was not a bona fide one. According to him, the appreciation of evidence including the circumstantial evidence available in the case by the authorities below was grossly erroneous. Hence, the judgment of the Appellate Authority has become tainted by illegality, irregularity or impropriety. He requested that the above judgment be interfered with and the need be found to be not bona fide and order of eviction be vacated. 4. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Under the statutory scheme, the Appellate Authority is the final court R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -6- on facts. When the findings entered by that authority are founded on evidence and are reasonable findings, ordinarily this Court is not expected to re-appraise the evidence and substitute those findings by fresh findings. Having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the findings entered therein that the need is bona fide and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso are findings entered on the basis of legal evidence available on record. The soundness of the landlady's financial position cannot be a ground for negativing the plea of the landlady supported by the evidence of PW1 that PW1, her husband needs to do grocery business in the petition schedule building. PW1's evidence in terms of the R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -7- Rent Control Petition was not shaken despite searching cross examination. Another reason on the basis of which the bona fides of the need was challenged was that the landlady's husband is already conducting transport business. Despite that contention no acceptable evidence was adduced by the tenant to show that the landlady's husband according to who, he was without any other business, conducting transport business. The authorities below have rightly concluded that the landlady's husband was without any avocation or business. The third point on which the bona fides is challenged is that the landlady had issued a notice in 1991 projecting the very same need and practically abandoned the need and has filed the present petition only after lapse of ten years. R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -8- Inordinate delay in approaching the Rent Control Court can under certain circumstances be indicative of absence of bona fides. But in the present case, PW1 had a convincing explanation to offer as to why the lawyer notice issued in 1991 was not followed up with proceedings before the court. The above explanation was found convincing by the fact finding authorities under the statute. We are not persuaded on the submissions of the revision petitioner to hold that those authorities erred in accepting the explanation offered by the landlord. In short we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority entering findings and ordering eviction in favour of the landlord. R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -9- 5. As a last plea time was sought for to surrender the premises. We feel that on the totality of the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting a slightly longer than normal period to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. Hence, the result of the RCR will be as follows:- 6. RCR is dismissed confirming the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 28/02/11 subject to the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to give R. C. R. No.150 of 2010 -10- peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent/PW1 on or before 28/02/11. It will be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and that occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid promptly and regularly till the date of actual surrender. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of time granted as above unless he files the affidavit on time. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-