IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 94 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.11/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THRISSUR RCP.12/2003 of M.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- BHASURANGI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. SIVADASAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PARAKKAD DESOM, VENGANELLUR VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK PIN 680 586. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.SETHUMADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDNT/PETITIONER: --------------- PARAMESWARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KOTTARAM MADATHIL SUBRAMANIAN, VENGANELLUR VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK PIN 680 586. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO.95 & 97/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos. 94,95 & 97OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In R.C.R. No.94/2011 the tenant, a document writer, challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord was for residential occupation as he is presently put up in his brother's house. 2. In RCR Nos.95/2011 and 97/2011 under challenge is a common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA Nos. 47/2006 an 48/2006. In these two revision petitions the landlord is one and the same person and the need, which he had projected under sub section (8) of section 11, was expansion of his business which he was already conducting in another portion of the same larger building. In fact, the landlord in these two cases had invoked Section 11(3) also. RCR.Nos.94/2011 & others 2 3. Even though the revision petitioners had filed statement of objections raising all possible contentions, the Rent Control Court after enquiry would come to the conclusion in RCP No.12/2003 corresponding to RCR No.94/2011 that the landlord was successful in proving the existence of ground for eviction under Section 11(3). Similarly, in the other two rent control petitions, which were jointly tried, the Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence would repel the arguments of the tenants. It was found that the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlord was a bona fide one and also that the advantages which the landlord will gain by getting eviction will outweigh the hardship if any which may be sustained by the tenants. 4. By the common judgment, the common order passed by the Rent Control Court in RCP Nos.11/2003 & 14/2003 was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and by a separate judgment in RCA No.11/2006, the order passed by the Rent Control Court in RCP No.12/2003 was confirmed . 5. In these revisions filed under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the two impugned judgments. RCR.Nos.94/2011 & others 3 Sri.K.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. The learned counsel would draw our attention to the impugned judgments passed by the Appellate Authority and submit that there is no independent appreciation of the pleadings and evidence by the learned Appellate Authority though he was expected to do so in terms of his powers under Section 18. What the learned Appellate Authority has done is to blindfoldly endorse the findings of the learned Rent Control Court. Appellate powers have in fact not been exercised by the learned Appellate Authority, so submitted the learned counsel. 6. Persuasiveness of the submissions of Mr.Ramachandran notwithstanding, having scanned the orders of the Rent Control Court and the judgments of the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 for interfering with the judgments of the Appellate Authority. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, this court is not expected to venture upon a de novo reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting factual conclusions arrived at by the statutory facts finding authorities- the rent RCR.Nos.94/2011 & others 4 control Court and the Appellate Authority. In the present case, the findings on facts have been concurrently entered by the statutory authorities and on going through the judgments of the Appellate Authority, we are convinced that the findings entered by that authority regarding the bona fides of the need and also regarding the existence of the eviction ground under Section 11 (3) in RCP Nos.12/2003, and under Section 11(8) in RCP Nos.11/2003 and 14/2003 are findings founded on legal evidence available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory facts finding authorities, within the attenuated jurisdiction under Section 20, this Court will not be justified in interfering with those findings. Hence, we are not inclined to admit these revisions. 7. As a last plea, Mr.Ramachandran submitted that in these cases, there is justification for granting at least one and half years time to each of the revision petitioners for surrendering the premises. We also feel that the facts and circumstances attending on these cases will justify the granting to the revision petitioners an unusually long period of time. Even as we dismiss these revision petitions confirming the eviction orders passed, we RCR.Nos.94/2011 & others 5 are inclined to issue notice to the respondents/landlords to decide as to the extent of time to be granted to the revision petitioners . The result of the above discussion is that the revision petitions will stand dismissed confirming the eviction order. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk