IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 178 of 2010() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2010 IN RCA.28/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM RCOP.6/2004 of PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HALEEMA BEEVI,W/O.LATE MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 53,MANALEL HOUSE,ALUMMOODDU, THAZHATHANGADI , KOTTAYAM. 2. JEEJA,D/O.LATE MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 31, MANALEL HOUSE, DO. DO,. 3. FAZILA,D/O.LATE MUHAMMED KUNJU,AGED 34, DO. DO. 4. SHAMEER,S/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUNJU,AGED 42 DO. DO. 5. RIYAS,S/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUNJU,AGED 28, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- THOMAS BAKER FENN,S/O.LATE THOMAS BAKER FENN,AGED 58, RESIDING AT 1374,NARAYANA GURU ROAD SAIBABA COLONY,SAIBABA PO, COIMBATORE,TAMILNADU FROM CHUNANGATTUTHOPPIL HOUSE,VAZHOOL VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 179 OF 2010 & RCR NO. 189 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos. 178,179,189 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Different tenants occupying portions of a larger building have come in revision against the orders concurrently passed against them by the statutory authorities on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. Even though the grounds of arrears of rent and sub letting were also invoked in the three cases, which were jointly tried by the learned Rent Control Court, those grounds no longer survive as the landlord did not challenge the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on those grounds. The need, which was projected in RCP Nos.4/2004 & 5/2004 corresponding to RCR Nos.189/2010 and 179/2010, was that the first petitioner in those RCPs, who is a Chartered Accountant by profession, wants to occupy the rooms for the purpose of practising his profession as Chartered Accountant. The need, which was projected in RCP No. 6/2004 corresponding to RCR No.178/2010, was that the petitioner Sri. Thomas Baker, who is a software expert, wants to do business in computer and RCR.Nos.179/2010 & others 2 allied matters. Bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenants, who contended that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso of sub section (3) of Section 11 also. The Rent Control Court enquired into the petitions. At trial both Sri.Thomas Baker and Sri.Renji Baker were examined. Despite severe cross examination both of them stood firmly and the Rent Control Court was very much impressed by the oral evidence adduced by them and it was found that the need is bona fide. On the basis of the evidence which came on record, it was also found that the tenants were unsuccessful in showing that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. Even though appeals were preferred by the tenants to the Appellate Authority the Appellate Authority after reappraising the evidence, concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. 3. In these revisions filed under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.K.G.Pavithran, learned counsel for the revision RCR.Nos.179/2010 & others 3 petitioners strenuously addressed us on all those grounds. The learned counsel submitted that the findings entered by the statutory authorities are illegal, irregular and improper and that the appreciation of the evidence by them has been thoroughly erroneous. 4. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well a as the order of the Rent Control Court. We remind ourselves of the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. We find that the findings entered by the statutory authorities both regarding the genuineness of the need projected in the RCP and also regarding the question whether the tenants are entitled to the protection of the second proviso of sub section (3) of Section are reasonable findings entered on the basis of evidence available on record. We do not find any warrant for interference. The revisions necessarily have to fail and the same will stand dismissed. 5. After we pronounced the above order, counsel for the petitioners Mr.Pavithran submitted that the petitioners have RCR.Nos.179/2010 & others 4 been carrying on their respective businesses for the past about 50 years and that if this Court is inclined to confirm the eviction order, they be granted two years time to surrender the premises. He also submitted that it is possible that, if attractive rent is offered which his clients are prepared to do, the landlord was become inclined to allow the tenants to continue. In view of the above submissions, issue urgent notice by speed post. Post on 6/8/2010. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk