IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No. 102 of 2010(C) ----------------------------- RCA.101/2006 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.6/2003 of III ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURTEKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN RCA/ADDL.R4 IN RCP.: -------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH JAMES, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.LATE THOMAS T.MATHAI & W/O.N.M.JAMES, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, INTUCE JUNCTION, NETOOR P.O., MARADU (VIA), PIN-682304. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN RCA/ PETITIONERS &: ADDL.R2 & 3 IN RCP: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.U.DEVI, AGED 76,W/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI,DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR. 2. MRS.K.P.LAKSHMI, AGED 52,D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR. 3. SRI.K.P.NARAYANAN, AGED 51, S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR. 4. MATHEW THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS T.MATHAI, NEW LIFE MINISTRIES, 111/210,SOUTH KALAMASSERY, PIN-682033. 5. JOHN THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS T.MATHAI, SHALOM, M-90, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, PIN-682033. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No. 102 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 Order Basheer, J: The tenant of a commercial building who has suffered a concurrent order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala (Buildings & Lease Control) Act, 1965 is the petitioner in this revision petition. 2. Eviction was sought by respondents 1 to 3/landlords contending that the petition schedule building, having an area of about 600 sq.feet was needed for the bona fide own occupation of the husband of respondent No.2 who is a practising lawyer, to set up an office. The Rent Control Court, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the bona fide need set up by the landlord was genuine and accordingly ordered eviction. The above order was impugned by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority which concurred with the view taken by the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. 3. The case of the landlords may be briefly noticed. The petition schedule building was let out to the father of the revision petitioner in the year 1989. The original tenant passed away RCR.102/2010 : 2 : during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court. Admittedly the revision petitioner is now conducting a business in Books in the premises. The landlords contended that the petition schedule building was needed for the own occupation of the husband of the second respondent to set up an office in connection with his legal profession. The landlords sought eviction of the tenant of the adjoining room also, for the very same purpose. 4. The claim for eviction was resisted by the respective tenants contending that the need was not bona fide as alleged. It was further contended that other vacant rooms were available in the possession of the landlords. 5. The two cases were tried jointly. The husband of respondent No.2 was examined as Pw.1 on the side of the landlords and Exts.A1 to A11 were also marked on their side. The husband of the revision petitioner was examined as Rw.1 and Exts.B1 to B8(d) were marked. Exts.C1 and C2 reports of the Advocate Commissioner were also marked. 6. The Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found that the claim set up by the landlord for eviction of the two premises was bona fide and accordingly ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the RCR.102/2010 : 3 : Act. The Rent Control Court held that the tenant was not entitled to the benefit of the two provisos under section 11(3). It was also held that the contention of the tenant that the landlords have other buildings in their possession in the same city was not correct. 7. As mentioned earlier, the above order of eviction was challenged by the tenants before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. While the appeal filed by the other tenant was allowed and his case was remitted to the Rent Control Court, the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner was dismissed holding that the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) is bona fide and genuine. 8. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the finding entered by the courts below suffers from serious illegality and irregularity, inasmuch as the courts below have lost sight of the fact that the Pw.1 who is based in Thrissur has no real intention or plan to set up practice in Kochi. It is contended that Pw.1 is not a dependant of the family of the landlords. Further, both the tenants had offered to surrender 300 sq.feet out of the total area of 1600 sq.feet available with them to the landlords, so that if at all the need was genuine, PW.1 could have occupied the same. But the said offer was spurned by the landlords with an ulterior motive. It is further contended that the idea of the landlords is to get vacant possession of the entire RCR.102/2010 : 4 : building and to sell it to another person for a very fanciful price prevailing in the market. It is also contended that one Vikraman Pillai who is in occupation of a portion of the building has clandestinely agreed to purchase the property and he is now collecting the rent from the tenants in the building. 9. It may at once be noticed that the petitioner does not have a case that Pw.1 is not a legal practitioner; nor does she have a case that Pw.1 is not practising in the Courts at Ernakulam. Though it is contended that Pw.1 who hails from Thrissur is based in that town, there is nothing on record to show that he is not a practising lawyer of not only this Court but the other courts as well, situated in Kochi. Even though it is vehemently contended that Pw.1 is not a dependant on the landlords, the revision petitioner has totally failed to adduce any evidence to show that the above status claimed by Pw.1 is questionable. 10. As mentioned earlier, the courts below after a careful evaluation of the evidence of Pw.1 had come to the conclusion that he is a dependant and that he does not have any other premises of his own to set up an office. Further, the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority did concurrently find that the revision petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit or protection of the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act. Though it was RCR.102/2010 : 5 : contended by the revision petitioner/tenant that the landlords have other buildings of their own which are suitable for the occupation of Pw.1 in the same city, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner in this regard. It was also found that the petitioner had failed to establish that she is mainly depending on the income which she derives from the business that she carries on in the petition schedule building. 11. We have perused the entire materials available on record. We have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the respondents/landlords who have entered appearance on caveat, at length. Having done so, we are totally satisfied that the concurrent finding entered by the courts below does not warrant any interference, and that too in the revisional jurisdiction exercisable under Section 20 of the Act. It is trite that the scope of interference is very narrow and limited. There is no manifest illegality or irregularity on the face of the order impugned. Therefore we do not find any reason to differ from the concurrent view taken by the authorities below. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the revision petitioner makes a fervent plea to grant some reasonable time to the petitioner to give vacant possession to the landlords. It is contended by the learned counsel that Pw.1 may not be in a RCR.102/2010 : 6 : position to occupy the entire premises as envisaged by him since the other case has been remitted to the Rent Control Court which is yet to dispose of the same. In other words, the contention is that it may take a few months if not years for the landlord to get possession of the other portion of the building which is in occupation of the other tenant. Therefore the plea is to grant the petitioner at least one year's time to vacate. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the revision petitioner may require some time to find a suitable alternate place to shift his business. However the court below has found that the revision petitioner has got two other premises in her possession, including the one at Vyttila, in the very same city where she is conducting the very same business. We do not propose to deal with that aspect at this stage, since in our view, the petitioner can be granted only very reasonable time to vacate. The eviction petition has been pending since 2003. Moreover, the authorities below have found that the petitioner is conducting the very same business in two other premises in the same city. 13. However having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that revision petition can be granted time till August 15, 2010 to vacate the premises on condition that she shall file an affidavit before the Execution RCR.102/2010 : 7 : Court undertaking to give vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to respondents 1 to 3 on or before August 15, 2010 and on further condition that she pays the entire arrears of rent to the landlords within one month from today. The affidavit shall be filed by the petitioner before the Execution Court within one week from today. If the affidavit of undertaking is not filed and rent in arrears is not paid as directed above, the Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.