IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 RCRev..No. 306 of 2009(C) ------------------------------- RCA.30/2007 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCOP.14/2006 of ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT (RENT CONTROL), TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------- C.CHANDRAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, TC.2/653(2), CHALAKUZHY ROAD, NEAR AMBADI MEDICAL STORES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- SARASWATHY AMMA, D/O.DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 81 YEARS, THEKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERUKARAKONAM, CHALAKUZHY ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.306 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant is in revision. He challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the authorities under the statute on the grounds of arrears of rent under section 11(2)(b); bona fide need for own occupation under section 11(3) and the tenant having possession of other buildings under section 11(4)(iii). The parties will be referred to as the landlord and the tenant. The landlord sought to evict the tenant on the ground of cessation of occupation also. The tenant filed a counter disputing the existence of any of the R. C. R. No.306 of 2009 -2- grounds. The Rent Control Court enquired into the case and at trial the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A16, Exts.B1 and B2, Ext.C1 and oral testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and CPWs.1 and CPW2. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence concluded that the eviction grounds under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) stood established. Though appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner against the order of the Rent Control Court, the Appellate Authority also concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. In this revision various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner R. C. R. No.306 of 2009 -3- addressed arguments on all the grounds. Smt.M.A.Zohra on behalf of the respondent would resist all the submissions. Though Sri.Jaju Babu addressed arguments on all the grounds, he gave more thrust to one argument. The argument was that the landlady had filed a previous RCP in respect of T.C.2/657 for evicting the tenant in occupation of that room on the ground of the landlady's own occupation. The landlady after getting eviction let out that building to one Sreekumar. Here is a landlady whose claim is already demonstrated to be without bona fides. The present need also cannot be bona fide. Even if this Court feels that there is no warrant for interference within the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under section 20, it must be ensured R. C. R. No.306 of 2009 -4- that the building is not let out after eviction, as was done in the case of T.C.2/657. We are not impressed by the above argument of Sri.Jaju Babu. It is clear from the evidence which came on record that Sreekumar who according to the tenant is conducting business in T.C.2/657 is either a grandson or at least a very close relative of the landlady herself. The landlady is a senior person and it is clear to our mind that she is conducting business with the assistance of Sreekumar, a close relative. It is difficult to infer on the basis of the occupation of that building by Sreekumar that the landlady is a person who approaches the Rent Control Court with dishonest motives. We are sitting in a jurisdiction which is revisional in nature. Ordinarily, this court does not R. C. R. No.306 of 2009 -5- re-appreciate the evidence and substitute our conclusions for the factual conclusions arrived at by the final fact finding authority namely the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Having scanned the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, we feel that the findings entered by those authorities in the context of section 11(3) are founded on legal evidence which was available on record. The same is the position as regards the eviction order passed under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3). We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged under section 20 of Act 2, 1965 for interfering with the decision of the Appellate Authority. R. C. R. No.306 of 2009 -6- As a last plea, Sri.Jaju Babu sought for a year's time to surrender the premises. The above request is opposed by Sri.Zohra. However, we feel that in the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting time till 15/08/10 subject to certain conditions. When the attention of Smt.Zohra was drawn to the apprehension voiced by Jaju Babu that in the present case also, the building in question will be let out, she submitted that the apprehension is without any basis. According to her, the building is going to be occupied by the son of the landlady/PW1 himself. She said that there will not be any objection to suffering any order which will ensure that PW1 himself occupies the building. The up short of the above discussion is as R. C. R. No.306 of 2009 -7- follows:- The RCR is dismissed. The order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner is confirmed. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 16/08/10 subject to the following conditions:- The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the execution court, as the case may be, within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent on or before 15/08/10. Through the same affidavit, it will also be undertaken that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the current rent rates will be paid as R. C. R. No.306 of 2009 -8- and when the same falls due. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted only if the affidavit is filed on time. The respondent is directed to ensure that her son/PW1 occupies the building for the purposes mentioned in the RCP. She is restrained from letting out the building to anybody for a period of three years from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-