IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 406 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.4/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , PARAVUR RCP.6/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS (S): -------------------- 1. JOSE,AGED 55,S/O.THOMAS, KANDAMANGALATHAN HOUSE, THAVALAPPARA KARA, MANJAPPRA VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK. 2. JIJO,S/O.JOSE,KANDAMANGALATHAN HOUSE THAVALAP[PARA KARA,MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- P.S.MATHAI,AGED 52,S/O.DEVASSY, PUNNACKAL KILUKKAN, VADAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, MANJAPRA VILLAGE,ALUVA TLAUK, PIN - 683 581 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, ALONG WITH RCR NO.407/2010 & CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos. 406,407,408,411,412 & 413 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. RCR Nos.406/2010, 407/2010, 408/2010 are directed against the common judgment of the rent control appellate authority, North Paravur, in RCA Nos.4/2010, 9/2010 & 5/2010. RCR Nos.412/2010 & 413/2010 are directed against the common judgment in RCA Nos.7/2010 & 8/2010. RCA No.411/2010 is directed against the judgment in RCA No.6/2010 of the same Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. The rent control court had tried three rent control petitions covered by RCR Nos.406/2010, 407/2010 & 408/2010 jointly. Similarly the rent control petitions covered by RCR Nos.412/2010 & 413/2010 were also tried together. The rent control petition pertaining to RCR No.411/2010 was tried separately. Though the buildings in question now belong to RCR.Nos.406/2010 & others 2 different landlords, originally the same belonged to one and the same landlord. The common grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and reconstruction under section 11 (4)(iv) were invoked by the landlords. As the need of each landlord was to reconstruct the building owned by him and to occupy the entirety of the building after reconstruction for his own purpose, the statutory authorities rightly found that if the eviction ground under section 11(3) was established, there is no necessity to consider grantability of eviction order under Section 11(4)(iv) and the liability of the landlords to reinduct the tenants in terms of the 3rd proviso to section 11(4)(iv) after reconstruction. 3. The respondents/tenants disputed the bona fides of the need projected by the respective landlords. They also disputed the allegations regarding the arrears of rent. In two cases, they even disputed the contract rent payable by them. In all these cases they even denied the title of the landlords. The rent control court enquired into the bona fides of the denial of title and found that the denial is not bona fide and proceeded to RCR.Nos.406/2010 & others 3 consider the merits of the eviction grounds. Both sides adduced evidence. On appreciating the evidence, the rent control court came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlords was bona fide and it was also concluded that in each case the rent was in arrears as alleged by the landlords. As the need of the landlords was to occupy the entire buildings owned by them for accomplishing their own need, the rent control court ordered eviction only under sub section (3) of Section 11 and clause (b) of sub section(2) of Section 11. 4. The tenants preferred appeals to the rent control appellate authority and the judgments impugned in these revisions have been delivered by the rent control appellate authority on considering those appeals. 5. Sri.V.Rajendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of the various grounds that have been raised in these revisions under Section 20. The learned counsel submitted that the appreciation of the evidence by the rent control court and the appellate authority has been thoroughly erroneous. The evidence, according to him, if correctly appreciated, will show RCR.Nos.406/2010 & others 4 that there is no honest need for any of these landlords and that the claims have been raised by them as a ruse for evicting the tenants. According to Mr.Rajendran, the impugned judgments are tainted with irregularity, illegality, or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. 6. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of Mr.V.Rajendran. We have scanned the judgment of the appellate authority and gone carefully through the orders passed by the rent control court. We have also considered those aspects of evidence to which our attention was drawn by Mr.Rajendran. The persuasiveness of submissions of MrRajendran notwithstanding, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments of the rent control appellate authority within the well defined contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20. In the present jurisdiction, we are not expected to reappraise the evidence and substitute the factual conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities especially in the present case where those findings have been concurrently entered and are founded on evidence. We are convinced that the findings of the rent control appellate authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final RCR.Nos.406/2010 & others 5 court on facts, in favour of the landlords regarding the existence of ground under Sections 11(3) and 11(2)(b) are well founded on the legal evidence available on record. The revision petitions necessarily have to fail and will stand dismissed. 7. Mr.Rajendran now make a very fervent appeal for grant of 18 months to the tenants for surrendering the premises. We do not think that we will be justified in granting so much of time and that too without notice to the respondents. At the same time, having taken into account the totality of the facts existing in the case and the circumstances attending on the same, we feel that there is justification for granting a fairly long period of time to the revision petitioners for surrendering the premises subject to certain conditions. 8. The result of these revision petitions will be as follows; i). The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 31/12/2011 subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioners in RCR Nos.407/2010, 408/2010, 413/2010 & RCR.Nos.406/2010 & others 6 411/2010 and the first revision petitioner in RCR No.406/2010 & 412/2010 representing him/her and the other revision petitioners in those cases will file affidavits before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respective landlords on or before 31/12/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent, as found by the statutory authorities (less any amount paid during the pendency of the proceedings) inclusive of the rent for the month of December 2010 will be discharged on or before 15/1/2011 and that occupational charges at the existing rent rates as found by the authorities will be paid without fail as and when the same falls due. We make it clear that the revision petitioners will be entitled for the benefit of time granted as above, only if they file the RCR.Nos.406/2010 & others 7 affidavits and honour the undertakings therein. If it is noticed that there is no compliance with the above conditions, the Execution Court will be justified in ordering delivery forthwith. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk