IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011/5TH PHALGHUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 81 of 2011 (B) ------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA.54/2008 DATED 17.07.2010 ON THE FILE of COURT OF II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM AND ORDER IN RCP.92/2006 DATED 28.03.2008 OF THE 3RD ADDL.MUNSIFF AND RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM) .......................................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN RCA/RESPONDENTS IN R.C.P : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KARTHIYANI, W/O.CHELLAPPAN, KEETHARAPARAMBA, PERAMBITHARA ROAD, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUSILA, D/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, KEETHARAPARAMBA, PERAMBITHARA ROAD, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. CHANDRIKA, W/O.ABDULKADAR, KEETHARAPARAMBA, PERAMBITHARA ROAD, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN RCA/PETITIONERS IN R.C.P : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHAVANI, W/O.LATE MADHAVAN, AGED 72 YEARS, EACHARANGATH HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, NADAKKAVU P.O. - 682 307. (DIED) Contd...2/- AMV : 2 : RCRev..No. 81 of 2011 (B) 2. LATHIKA, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN, AGED 54, MARKET ROAD, THOPPUMPADI - 682 005. 3. PRAMEELAS, D/O.LATE MADHAVAN, AGED 47, ARTHIYIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O., PERUMPADAPPU - 682 006. 4. UNNIKUTTAN, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, AGED 30, EACHARANGATH HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, NADAKKAVU P.O., - 682 307. BY ADV. SRI.K.VINU RAJ THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-02-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMV PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos 81 & 82 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants have filed these revision petitions impugning the common judgment of the local Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Court on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the petitioners in the RCPs was that the 4th petitioner one Unnikuttan needs to occupy the petition schedule building for his independent residence with his family, so that he can attend on his aged mother Bhavani, the first petitioner in the rent control petitions, and also provide education to his children in educational institutions at Ernakulam offering better facilities than at Tripunitura where his wife house is situated. 2. Bona fides of the need was disputed. The tenants contended that they are entitled to the protection of the second RCR.Nos.81 & 82/2011 2 proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Sri.Unnikuttan himself gave evidence as PW1 and his evidence inspired the Rent Control Court. That court found that the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 cannot have much application in this case where the building is residential in nature. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. 3. During the pendency of the appeals preferred by the tenants, the mother of Unnikuttan (the first petitioner in the rent control petition), passed away. The learned Appellate Authority noticed the demise of the mother as a subsequent event which eclipses a part of the need projected in the rent control petitions. However, the Appellate Authority found that the need continues to be bona fide as Unnikuttan continues to reside in his wife's house at Tripunatura and his children continue to be educated in schools at Tripunthura. In that view of the matter, the learned Appellate Authority would confirm the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Smt.R.Ranjini, learned counsel for the revision petitioners RCR.Nos.81 & 82/2011 3 addressed very persuasive arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. Smt.Ranjini highlighted that the premises, which are subject matter of these revisions, are portions of a dilapidated building which is unsuitable for the residential occupation of Mr.Unnikuttan. According to her, there is no case for the petitioners in the rent control petitions that the building is going to be renovated or repaired before Unnikuttan occupies the same for residence. Mr.Unnikuttan (PW1) is happily settled in Tripunithura municipal town in close proximity to the Cochin city. Education facilities at Tripunithura are equal if not better than those available at Cochin, so submitted the learned counsel. 5. The persuasiveness of Smt.Ranjini notwithstanding, we find it difficult to uphold the learned counsel's submissions. The jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting is revisional in nature. In this jurisdiction, this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence and substitute factual conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities especially when they are concurred and are founded on evidence on record. As already indicated, the oral evidence given by Unnikuttan (PW1) that he wants to come out to Cochin and live in his own building rather RCR.Nos.81 & 82/2011 4 than continue to live in his wife house inspired the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. True, the first petitioner in the rent control petition passed away. But, Unnikuttan continues to reside in his wife house and his children continue to be educated in schools at Tripunitura. Though there are good schools in Tripunithura, Mr.Unnikuttan's version that there are better schools and more number of such schools in Cochin has been established in evidence. In that view of the matter we are unable to say that the findings of the learned Appellate Authority that the need projected in the rent control petition is vague and erroneous. Necessarily, the revision has to fail. 6. However, considering the appealing submission of Smt.Ranjini that the petitioners are aged ladies working as housemaids, we are inclined to grant a reasonably long period of 10 months time from today till 31/12/2011 to them to surrender the premises. 7. Accordingly, the result of the above discussion is as follows. i). The revision petitions are dismissed. ii). The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance RCR.Nos.81 & 82/2011 5 proceedings for delivery till 31/12/2011 subject to following conditions; The first revision petitioner in both these cases representing themselves and their fellow revision petitioners will file affidavits before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the 4th respondent on or before 31/12/2011 and further that arrears of rent if any will be discharged within one month and to pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate without fail till actual surrender of the building is given. We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of time granted above only if the affidavit directed as above is filed on time and all the undertakings therein are honoured. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk