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 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 77 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.10/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MANJERI RCP.19/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ KANDATHU CHEKKU HAJI, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN HAJI, TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR AMSOM, KOTT DESOM, P.O.TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- ASHARAF, S/O.MOONAMKAVIL V.P.KUNHIKOYA, TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR AMSOM, KOTT DESOM, PAYYANANGADI, P.O.TIRUR-676101. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 77 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is in revision. He challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the rent control petition completely. The landlord had invoked the grounds of arrears of rent under section 11(2)(b), bona fide need for own occupation under section (11(3), the user of the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility under section 11(4)(ii) and the tenant has another building reasonably sufficient for tenant's requirements under section 11(4)(iii). 2. Existence of the grounds were disputed by the tenant and after enquiry, the Rent Control Court found that none of the grounds stood established. As regards the ground of arrears of rent, the finding was that the landlord had not issued the statutory intimation notice under the provisos to Section 11(2) (b). Thus, the rent control petition was completely dismissed. RCR.No.77/2011 2 3. The learned Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. The appeal was thus dismissed. 4. In this revision various grounds are raised and Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. We have considered the submissions of Mr.Mohammed Iquabal. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the findings entered by the learned Appellate Authority regarding the existence or otherwise of the grounds are findings founded on the basis of evidence. Having regard to the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction under section 20, we do not find way to interfere with those findings. The judgment of the Appellate Authority will have to be confirmed and we confirm the same. 5. One submission made by Mr.Mohammed Iquabal has some appeal to us. The submission was that the rent of Rs.1,400/-, per month which is being paid by the tenant, is far below the rent which the building may fetch if the same is let out RCR.No.77/2011 3 today. According to the learned counsel, the building will fetch at least Rs.5,000/- per mensem. We feel that the building should fetch at least 2,500/- per mensem. Even as we confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the revision petition, we are inclined to issue notice to the respondent tenant for refixing the rent. The result of the above discussion is that the revision petition will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk