IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 221 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.31/2009 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , PALAKKAD RCP.29/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- MEENAMBAL, AGED 63 YEARS, D/O.LATE KAMALAM, D/NO.40/537 THARAKAR LANE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. PARTHASARATHY, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAMA MANOHARAN, MOOTHAMANNADIYAR HOUSE, KIZHUMURI, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD - 678001. 2. SARASWATHY, W/O.DORAI, WW/51 MAHALIYAMMAN KOVIL STREET, BIG BAZAR, COIMBATORE - 641 001 3. GURUVAYOORAPPAN, S/O.RADHA MANNADIAR, 37/355, POOL NO.47, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND OFFICE PALAKKAD AUTO STAND NO.22 OPP.KANNAYAMAN KOVIL, PALAKKAD - 678 001. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 221 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant, a sweeper in the Postal Department, challenges in this revision under Section 20, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord/respondent was that the building is required bona fide for occupation by the respondent aged 30 for starting residence after getting married. Though the bona fides of the need was disputed, the Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties consisting of Ext.A1 to A6, PW1 and RW1, Exts.C1 and C1(a) found that the need is bona fide. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed. Under the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority has concurred with the finding of the Rent Control Court. 2. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.U.Balagangadharan learned counsel for the revision RCR.No.221/2011 2 petitioner addressed us strenuously on the basis of those grounds. The submissions of the learned counsel notwithstanding, having gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court and having kept in mind the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20, we have no hesitation to say that we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority as contemplated by Section 20. PW1 Parthasarathy is aged 30 and the oral evidence that he gave before the Rent Control Court that he wants to get married and wants his own independent residence for himself and his wife, would be inspired the Rent Control Court. By all appearances the need is a bona fide one and no wonder PW1's oral evidence was found convincing by the two fact finding authorities under the statute. We do not find any warrant for interference. The revision petition fails and will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk