IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 330 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.71/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.4/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVIS, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.THEKKINIYATH PAZHAYI ANTHONY, RESIDING AT ST.JOSEPH'S STREET, KURIACHIRA, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PAUL, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.CHIRAMMEL KUNHAVU MATHEW, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. 2. NIXON PAUL, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.CHIRAMMEL KUNHAVU PAUL, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. 3. BABULOO PAUL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.CHIRAMMEL KUNHAVU PAUL, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. 4. BOBIN PAUL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.CHIRAMMEL KUNHAVU PAUL, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. 5. THOMAS PAUL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.CHIRAMMEL KUNHAVU PAUL, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R1 TO4 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.330 of 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December 2010 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need for own occupation. 2. At the very outset Sri.Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted, as regards the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b), that, it will suffice the tenant is permitted to invoke Section 11(2)(c). Therefore, in this case what is to be considered is only the correctness of the eviction order passed under Section 11(3). The need projected by the landlord/petitioner in the RCP (1st respondent herein) was that the petition schedule building (a room in the ground floor of a double storeyed building) was required bonafide so that petitioners 2 to 5 (respondent 2 to 5) R.C.R. No.330 of 2010 -: 2 :- his sons can conduct stationery business. The bonafides of the need was disputed and it was contended by the tenant that at the time when respondents 2 to 5 were school going boys the 1st respondent had filed RCP 48/92 projecting the need of the sons. That RCP was dismissed. During the pendency of the present RCP the landlord filed two more RCPs, one in respect of the first floor portion on the ground that the building is required for the conduct of a supermarket by one of the sons. In respect of another room in the ground floor occupied by another tenant for conducting partnership business, another RCP was filed. The need projected in the present RCP was the need claimed in one of the RCPs. That RCP later withdrawn as compromised. All these aspects will show that the need is not bonafide. The Rent Control Court enquired into the contentions and in the enquiry the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A8 series and Exts.B1 to B22 and C1. Apart from the above, oral evidences of PW1 and PW2 and RW1 were recorded. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need is bonafide and also that tenant is not entitled to the protection of 2nd proviso to Sub section (3) of Section 11. Order of eviction R.C.R. No.330 of 2010 -: 3 :- was accordingly passed. 3. The learned Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the tenant and reappraised the evidence and dismissed the RCA. 4. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. Sri.Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed strenuous and persuasive arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. Mr.Santhosh highlighted that the need projected is to accommodate the four sons of PW1. During the pendency of the RCP, fresh eviction proceedings were initiated in respect of the first floor and ground floor portions of the larger building, projecting need of two of the sons. The RCP instituted in respect of the ground floor occupied by Mr.Sankaranarayanan was later compromised receiving a much higher rent. All these will show that the need is not bonafide. The counsel submitted that the finding of the statutory authorities regarding the eligibility of the tenants to the protection of 2nd proviso also requires interference. R.C.R. No.330 of 2010 -: 4 :- 5. All the submissions of Mr.Santhosh were resisted by Mr.Jijo Paul. According to Mr.Jijo during the trial, PW1, the landlord, would confine his claim to accommodate two of the sons who are evidently without any employment or business. Within the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 there is no warrant for interfering with the decision entered by the authorities to order eviction, according to him. 6. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority and the order of Rent Control Court. The question is whether there is justification for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority which is under challenge in this RCR. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority we notice that the finding entered with regard to the bonafides of the need and also the tenant's eligibility for the protection of 2nd proviso to Sub section (3) of Section 11 are findings entered on legal evidence. In fact, no serious arguments were addressed before us by Mr.Santhosh regarding the findings of the statutory authorities in respect of the eligibility of the tenant for the protection of 2nd proviso to Sub section (3) of R.C.R. No.330 of 2010 -: 5 :- Section 11. As for the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner with regard to the finding in respect of bonafides of the need, it is true that due to subsequent events it had become more or less evident that out of the four sons of the landlord (respondents 2 to 5) only two were left without any employment or business. But then the need of the landlord father to accommodate those two sons in the petition schedule building for conducting stationery business cannot be said to be not a bonafide one. The above need was rightly found to be bonafide and we do not finding reason for interfering such finding within the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20. The result of the above discussion is as follows:- The RCR will fail and stand dismissed. Mr.P.Santhosh would make a fervent appeal for granting unusually long period of time to the revision petitioner to vacate. We feel that on the facts and circumstances which attend on this case, there is justification for granting one year's time. The result is therefore as follows :- The judgment of the Appellate Authority will stand confirmed. The order passed under Section 11(2)(b) is also R.C.R. No.330 of 2010 -: 6 :- confirmed. It is open to the revision petitioner, if he wants to get that order vacated by invoking Section 11(2)(c), to file an application within two months from today. The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 31.12.2011 subject to the following conditions:- The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today undertaking that he will discharge arrears of rent within two months from today and undertaking further to pay occupational charges with effect from 1.1.2011 at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensem till actual surrender of the petition schedule building. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings in the affidavit. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt