IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No.111 of 2009 --------------------------- RCA.79/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY RCP.161/2002 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ KRISHNA MOORTHI, S/O. MANIKKAN AGED 45 YEARS, NAVEEN AUTO WORKS MANNA, VALAPATTANAM, BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. PARAKKUDI POOCHI VALAPPIL ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT DARUSALAM, NEAR MUNEERUL SCHOOL, P.O. MATTOOL NORTH. 2. MAYINKARA PUTHIYAPURAYIL NASEEMA, D/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT THE ABOVE PLACE. 3. MAYINKARA PUTIYAPURAYIL ANAS, S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT THE ABOVE PLACE, THROUGH HIS P.A. HOLDER P.P.SUBAIR, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI AGED 29 YEARS. 4. MAYINKARA PUTHIYAPURAYIL ASEENA, D/O. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT THE ABOVE PLACE. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.111 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J A tenant against whom order of eviction has been passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Sub Section 3 of Section 11 is the petitioner in this revision petition. The need projected by the landlord was that the fourth respondent who was also a co-petitioner in the RCP who is recently married intends to occupy the petition schedule building as well as other portions of the larger building of which a petition schedule building is a part for residential purpose. The bona fides of the need and the claim was stiffly denied by the revision petitioner/tenant. R. C. R. No.111 of 2009 -2- 2. The Rent Control Court on an evaluation of the evidence which consisted inter alia of the oral testimony of the fourth respondent as PW1 and the counter oral evidence of the revision petitioner and RW2 tenant in occupation of another portion of the larger building, would hold that the need and the claim are bona fide. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed under Sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Appellate Authority re-appreciated the entire evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. 3. Before us Sri.Sunil Nair Palakkat, the learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the judgment of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of R. C. R. No.111 of 2009 -3- revision. Sri.Sunil Nair submitted that the fourth respondent is a very young girl who got married only very recently. Her husband is employed abroad. He submitted that she is presently put up with her parents in her palatial mansion. He submitted that the petition schedule building is only a line building and that too in a state of dilapidation. Sri.Sunil Nair, the learned counsel argued that the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority were expected to conduct an objective enquiry so that they could be satisfied that there is an element of necessity in the need and the claim projected by the landlords. He submitted that it is highly improbable that a young girl like the fourth respondent will lead a solitary life in the petition schedule building when there is enough space in her R. C. R. No.111 of 2009 -4- parent's palatial mansion where an exclusive 'Ara' is provided to her and her husband. We do not say that the submission of the learned counsel is totally without appeal. But this is a case where the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority which are the two fact finding courts under the statutory scheme have appreciated the evidence given by PW1 and chosen to accept that evidence and hold that the need and the claim projected by the landlord is an honest one. We, in this jurisdiction, do not sit in appeal over the findings entered into by the authorities below. 4. Having regard to the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any warrant for interference with the impugned order. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner R. C. R. No.111 of 2009 -5- that after obtaining eviction, the fourth respondent will not come and occupy the petition schedule building is taken care of by sub Section 12 of Section 11. If it is noticed that the fourth respondent is not occupying the building, it is always open to the revision petitioner to move the Rent Control Court with appropriate petition. We are sure that the Rent Control Court will pass effective orders so that the remedy provided by the statute to tenants who have been evicted on the grounds by sub Section 3 of Section 11 unnecessarily will become meaningful. 5. As his last submission, Sri.Sunil Nair, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for one year's time to vacate the premises. We are not inclined to grant so much of time. However, we feel R. C. R. No.111 of 2009 -6- that by way of indulgence time can be granted till the end of this year. Accordingly, even as we dismiss the RCR, there will be a direction to the execution court to adjourn the execution petition to the first of January, 2009 provided the following conditions are satisfied by the petitioner:- 1) The petitioner gives an undertaking to the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, stating that he will unconditionally and peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to the landlord on or before 31st of December, 2009 and stating further that he will discharge the arrears of rent, if any, and will continue to pay occupational charges till he surrenders the building at the present rent rate promptly and regularly. Once the concerned R. C. R. No.111 of 2009 -7- court notices this affidavit, the E.P. will be adjourned as directed above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-