IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 RCRev..No. 174 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.47/2007 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM RCP.35/2004 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- NARAYANA REDDIAR, AGED 72, KAREEPRA VEEDU, THEVALLY WARD, KOLLAM - 9. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. ISHA BEEVI (DIED), LAILA MANZIL, THEVALLY WARD, KOLLAM - 9. 2. RASHEED MUHAMMED, S/O.ISHA BEEVI, LAILA MANZIL, THEVALLY WARD, KOLLAM - 9. 3. IQBAL MUHAMMED, S/O.ISHA BEEVI, LAILA MANZIL, THEVALLY WARD, KOLLAM - 9. 4. SALEENA RANI, D/O.ISHA BEEVI, LAILA MANZIL, THEVALLY WARD, KOLLAM - 9. 5. RAMACHANDRA KUMAR, RAJ BHAVAN, PUNATHALA WARD, KOLLAM-12. 6. KRISHNA SWAMY, SOBHA NILAYAM, ANDAMUKKAM WARD, KOLLAM. 7. RAMAKRISHNAN, SOBHANA NILAYAM, ANDAMUKKAM WARD, KOLLAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN IA 1670/08 DISMISSED. 7/11/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No.174 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner who is the tenant under the respondents, challenging the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority, confirming the order of eviction. The landlady sought eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the currency of the proceedings, the landlady died and her legal heirs have been impleaded, who are now respondents 2 to 4 herein. 2. The premises in question are three godowns. The tenant was in occupation of godown Nos.M.C.1498, M.C.1501 and M.C.1508. The landlady sought eviction in respect of godown Nos.1501 and 1508. 3. The Rent Control Court found that the landlady has established the ground pleaded under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act in respect of godown Nos.MC 1501 and MC 1508. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of CPW.1 and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4. Even though the tenant contended that he is still using godown Nos.1501 and 1508, no evidence was adduced RCR 174/2008 -2- to substantiate the contention that he is occupying the same and he is using it. In fact, the tenant conceded that he kept one more lock above the lock in the godowns in question and in view of the above evidence also, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. 4. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority considered the matter in detail. Actually, the evidence of user is only in respect of godown No.MC 1498 and as regards the other two godowns the evidence is clinchingly against the tenant. After referring to the decision of this court in Mathai Antony v. Abraham (2004 (3) KLT 169), the Appellate Authority was of the view that the tenant ought to have proved that he is in possession and in user of the godowns in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is actually because of certain difference of opinion between the petitioner herein and his legal heirs that the additional lock was put in the godowns and actually they were in occupation by the tenant. Referring to the evidence of CPW.1 in cross examination, the Appellate Authority found that he did not deny that two locks each were put in two godowns. Actually he evaded to give a proper answer as to how two locks happened to be placed in the same godown. From the testimony of the tenant, it is revealed that there is some dispute between him and his children and that was the reason why the tenant put his own locks in the godowns. RCR 174/2008 -3- 5. Going by the evidence available in this case, we have no doubt in our mind that the landlady has succeeded in proving that the tenant has ceased to occupy the two godowns. There was no evidence to prove any actual user of the structures in question, as rightly found by the Appellate Authority. The production of Exts.B1 to B4, P.F.A. Licence for the year 2007 was found insufficient to rebut the presumption, by the Appellate Authority. We concur with the above view. 6. We find no reason to differ from the view taken by the authorities below. It cannot be said that the view taken is perverse. The authorities below have elaborately considered the evidence adduced by the parties and arrived at the correct conclusion. There are no grounds to interfere in exercise of the powers of revision. The revision petition is dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/