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 FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 28 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.19/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KASARAGOD RCP.4/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- V.P.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.B.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT ADOT, AJANOOR VILLAGE, VEGITABLE MERCHANT, NEAR RAJADHANI JEWELLERS, KANHANGAD, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. H.K.VASUDEVA, A/O.A.VITTAPPA, RESIDING NEAR KAILAS THEATRE, BELLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD - 671 315 KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.VITTAPPA, S/O.A.VITTAPPA, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE FOR R1 & 2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 28 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision under Section 20 the order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the statutory authorities on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. Even though several grounds were also invoked, it is only the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 which survives. 2. The need projected by the landlords was that they need possession of the petition schedule building for the purpose of conducting business in sweets and fruits. The first respondent/landlord's oral evidence as PW1 inspired the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court considered the tenant's contention that he is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section(3) of section 11 and found that the tenant was in possession of another building and he was conducting RCR.No.28/2011 2 some other business in that building. Accordingly, the benefit of the second proviso was declined to the tenant. 3. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the tenant reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed us strenuously on the basis of all those grounds. According to him, the appreciation of evidence by the authorities below was not at all proper. As regards the building found by the rent control authorities in the possession of the tenant, Mr.Gopikrishnan Nambiar submitted that in respect of that building also the order of eviction has been passed against the tenant. 5. The submissions of Mr.Gopikrishnan Nambiar were resisted by Sri.Aniyankunju Varghese learned counsel for the landlords, who has entered appearance coming to know about this revision. RCR.No.28/2011 3 6. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court and having guaged the Appellate Authority's judgment by the para meters applicable for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we are of the view that there is no warrant for interference with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find that the findings entered therein regarding the bona fides of the need and also regarding the tenant's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 are findings entered on the basis of the evidence which is available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory authorities on the basis of the evidence, this court in revision will not be justified in upsetting those findings by venturing upon reappraisal of the evidence. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. 7. As a last plea, Mr.Gopikrishnan Nambiar requested for granting to the tenant one and half years time for surrendering the premises. The above request is opposed by Mr.Aniyankunju Varghese. However, we feel that, on the totality of the RCR.No.28/2011 4 circumstances which attend on this case, there is justification for granting to the revision petitioner time till 31/3/2012 subject to certain conditions including the condition of refixing the rent payable with effect from 1st March 2011. 8. The result of the above discussion is as follows; i). The revision petition is dismissed confirming the eviction order. ii). The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 31/3/2012 subject to the following conditions; The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the first respondent on or before 31/3/2012 and undertaking further to discharge arrears of rent, if any, within one month and to pay occupational charges to the landlords at the rate of Rs.1350/- men sem with effect from 1st March 2011. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted above only if he files affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein. If there is any default in honouring the undertakings , it will be open to the respondents to RCR.No.28/2011 5 move the Execution Court for immediate delivery. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk