IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 350 OF 2010 & CAVEAT PETITION 983/2010 ------------------------ RCA.67/2008 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.179/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- P.S.BABU, AGED 58, S/O. PANDARAN SANKARAN, MANALUR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PROPRIETOR PIECE CENTER (MEN'S STYLE), OLD NO.12/10, (NEW NO.12/631), KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/CAVEATOR: ----------------------------------------------------------- G.KRISHNAN, S/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN EMBRANTHIRI, NEW AGRAHARAM, POONKUNNAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 001. ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2010, ALONG WITH CAVEAT PETITION 983 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C KURIAKOSE & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO.350 OF 2010 & = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010. O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2/65 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner under subsection 8 of Section 11 of the Act. The need projected by the landlord in the Rent Control Petition, which is subject matter of the present revision as well as in two other Rent Control Petitions which the landlord had filed in respect of the adjacent rooms, was that he need the three rooms for the purpose of starting a hotel which will cater to the needs of the occupants of the lodge which he is conducting in the remaining portions of a three storied building as well as to general public. The above need was raised as a need for additional accommodation for personal use of the landlord who himself is conducting lodge in the other portions of the building. The bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that at any rate, the hardship to be caused to the revision petitioner/tenant by granting eviction will outweigh the advantage of the respondent/ landlord . 2. The evidence in the case consisted of Exts.A1 to A4 and PW.1 on RCR 350/2010 2 the side of the landlord and Exts. B1 and the oral evidence of RW.1 on the side of the tenant. Court exhibits Ext.C1 commission report and the oral evidence of the Commissioner as CW.1. were also recorded. The Rent Control court after evaluating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlord is a bona fide one. It was also concluded that the advantages which the landlord may acquire by getting an order of eviction will outweigh the hardship which the tenant may sustain, as the tenant is not conducting much business in the petition schedule premises and it had come out in evidence that other suitable buildings are available for the tenant in the locality. 3. The revision petitioner preferred appeal R.C.A. 67 of 2008 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. He also filed an application for issuance of a commission stating that the landlord has already started the proposed hotel and hence the need as projected has been completely accomplished and it is not necessary to confirm the eviction order. Considering the commission application, an advocate was appointed as commissioner who submitted Ext.C2 report. Ext.C2 report was to the effect that the landlord had actually started a hotel. The learned Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the entire evidence, which was made RCR 350/2010 3 available before the trial court, as well as Ext.C2. The Appellate authority, however, would confirm the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. 4. In this revision under Section 20 of Act 2/65, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri. Sreekumar would address strenuous arguments before us. He submitted that the one need which was projected in all the three Rent Control Petitions was that a hotel is to be started for the benefit of the occupants of the lodge conducted by the landlord. Since Ext.C2 will show that a fairly large hotel has already been started, the above need has ceased to exist. Since the need projected has ceased to exist, it is absolutely unnecessary to confirm the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner. Sri. Sreekumar further submitted that consideration of implications of the proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 11 by the statutory authority was erroneous. It was necessary that the statutory authorities weighed the advantages which will enure to the landlord by getting eviction against the hardship which will be sustained by the tenant and as that has not been done in this case, the impugned judgment is vitiated. 5. All the arguments raised by Sri. Sreekumar were resisted by Sri. RCR 350/2010 4 Jijo Paul. He submitted that the need which was projected in the three Rent Control Petition was the need to conduct a hotel by utilizing the area of the three rooms which were the subject matter of the Rent Control Petitions. The biggest among the three rooms could be got vacated during the pendency of these proceedings. Once possession of that room was obtained, the landlord demonstrated that the need projected by him in the R.C.P. was bona fide by starting the hotel. But the hotel presently started does not have direct access from Kuruppam road, which is situated adjacent to the petition schedule room and the hotel presently has only the frontage of a lane. To prevent the landlord from getting possession of the room which is the subject matter of the appeals pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the schedule room, it is absolutely necessary to show that the landlord has accomplished the need projected in the three Rent Control Petitions fully and finally. The learned counsel submitted that the operation of the proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 11 has been correctly considered by the statutory authorities and accordingly, found against the tenant and there is no warrant for interference with those findings. 6. We have very anxiously considered the various submissions addressed with reference to the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent control Court. We have also considered the RCR 350/2010 5 pleadings to which our attention was drawn by the counsel. As the jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting is revisional in nature, this Court does not normally reappraise the evidence for the purpose of deviating from the conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities. Having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the reasons given are cogent and the findings are based on evidence available on record. True, as submitted by Sri. Sreekumar, it is not stated in so many words in the R.C.P. that unless there is direct access from Kuruppam road on which the petition schedule building is situated, it will not be possible for the landlord to conduct the proposed hotel. But then, when the landlord instituted three rent control petitions including the one in respect of the petition schedule building, the only one room which abuts Kuruppam road directly, it has to be taken that the landlord's case is that unless he gets possession of the petition schedule building abutting the Kuruppam road, he will not be able to conduct the proposed hotel in the manner he needs. We notice from the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the said authority has critically analysed Ext.C2 commission report and found that merely because the landlord has started the proposed hotel, it cannot be said that the need has become completely accomplished. By getting possession of the room where the hotel is now functioning, the need RCR 350/2010 6 projected in the R.C.P. has become accomplished only in part. The said need will become completely accomplished if the landlord get possession of the present room also. 7. As regards the grievance voiced by Sri. Sreekumar that the proviso to sub-section (10) of Section 11 has not been considered, we are of the view that the above grievance is not at all relevant as Rent Control Court has considered all the aspects of the matter and the Appellate Authority has confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. The above discussions will lead necessarily to the dismissal of the Rent Control Revision Petition. 8. Since the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for grant of an entirely long period for surrendering peaceful possession of the petition schedule premises, we direct the execution court to keep in abeyance all proceedings for delivery, for a period of one year from today till 30.11.2011, subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court within a period of three weeks from today, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises to the respondent on or before 30.11.2011, undertaking further to discharge the arrears of rent, if any, within a period of one month and that he shall continue to pay occupation charges at the current rate without any default. We make it RCR 350/2010 7 clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefits of this order only if he files the undertaking within the stipulated time and the undertaking is honoured. We further clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the Rent Control Appeal pending before the Appellate Authority. PIUS C KURIAKOSE, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-