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 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 5 of 2011() ---------------------- RCA.44/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.38/2008 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS RGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, MANJALIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ARAMADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695032. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/: PETITIONER ------------------------- V.M.SELVARAJ, S/O. V.MANAS, P P HOUSE, KUNNAPPUZHA, ARAMADA(PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. 24 OF 2011 DISMISSED SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. 23-3-2011 SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 5 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 by the Central Bank of India is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the Bank by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub-section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord was that he wants the building so that his daughter Rajasree can be provided with a separate residence and her marriage can be conducted at the earliest. The bonafides of the need was disputed by the Bank which contended that the landlord had not even raised this claim when notice was sent. The claim in the notice was only renewal of the existing lease deed on a higher rent. The Rent Control Court enquired into the contentions and at trial the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 RCR.5/11 -2- and A2 series, B1 to B3 and the oral evidence of PW-1 and DW-1. On evaluating the evidence the court came to the conclusion that eviction ground under Section 11(3) or the other ground which was invoked under Section 11(4)(ii) was not established. On that basis the RCP was completely dismissed. By the impugned judgment the Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord is a bona fide one. As the tenant did not claim the protection of the provisos the Appellate Authority would reverse the decision of the Rent Control Court and order eviction. 2. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri. Devan Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments based on all those grounds. All the arguments of Mr. Devan Ramachandran were resisted by Sri. J.Harikumar, learned counsel for the respondent. RCR.5/11 -3- 3. We have very anxiously considered the arguments addressed before us. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and we have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court. The question which arises before us is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, can be said to be vitiated to the extent of warranting interference under section 20 which is a revision jurisdiction. A reading of the judgment of the Appellate Authority will show that the learned Appellate Authority has entered the finding regarding the bonafides of the need and the existence of the ground was on an appreciation of the evidence adduced by PW-1. The fact that the daughter of PW-1 is come of age and is normally expected to be sent away in marriage is also not disputed. The need of the father to provide a separate house for his daughter is a need which has to be presumed to be bona fide in the absence of RCR.5/11 -4- oblique motive We don't find any oblique motive established, tainting the landlord's need. In short, we don't find any justification for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 4. Sri.Devan Ramachandran would make a last request that in case this court is not inclined to interfere with the eviction order atleast an year's time be granted for surrendering the premises. Having regard to the request of the revision petitioner we feel that time should be granted. Under the above circumstances, even as we confirm the eviction order and dismiss the RCR we direct the execution court to keep in abeyance all proceedings for delivery till 31- 3-2012 subject to the following condition: A competent person representing the revision petitioner bank shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be, within one month from today undertaking to effect peaceful RCR.5/11 -5- surrender of the premises on or before 31-03-2012 and undertaking further to pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate till such time as the building is surrendered. It will also be undertaken through the affidavit that arrears of rent if any, will be discharged within one month. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time as ordered above only if the affidavit is filed on time and the undertakings therein are honoured without fail. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-