IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 306 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.8/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , KOLLAM RCP.49/1999 of RENT CONTROL COURT ., KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SASIDHARAN,S/O.KARUNAKARAN,RESIDING AT KARUNA,MATHILIL'C'WARD,THRIKKADAVOOR,PERINAD PO, KOLLAM 691 601. 2. RAVEENDRAN,S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KULANGARATHUNDIL HOUSE,(KUNNUMPURATH), KOTTAKKAKAM CHERRY,THRIKKADAVOOR,PERINAD PO, KOLLAM 691 601. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANA PILLAI(DIED),S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI MANADIRATHIL VEEDU,NJARAKKAL CHERRY,THRIKKADAVOOR PERINAD PO,691 601. 2. THANKAMMA,D/O.KOCHUKUNJAMMA, MANDIRATHIL VEEDU,NJARAKKAL CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR,PERINAD PO,691 601. 3. SUDARSANA PILLAI,DO. 4. BABU PILLAI,DO. 5. SURESH,DO. 6. RAJESH NARAYANAN,DO. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 306 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant and the alleged sub tenant, who are brothers, is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam, confirming the order of eviction, which was passed against them, on grounds under sub section (3) of Section 11 and also clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 11. The need projected by the original landlord under section 11(3) is that the building is needed bona fide for the occupation of one Sudharsanan Pillai, his son, for the purpose of conducting glass and ply wood business. The allegation of the landlord in the context of the ground of sub letting was that the first respondent is the tenant having taken the building on the basis of the rent chit executed by him in favour of the landlord and the 2nd respondent is an unauthroised transferee/sub lessee. 2. The tenant's defence to the ground under Section 11(3) was that the need is not bona fide, that the landlord has five RCR.No.306/2010 2 other rooms, which are identical, and that if the need is bonafide, the landlord could have accommodated his son in any of the other rooms. The tenant also claimed protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The tenant's defence to the ground of sub lease was that the original tenant was their father and that upon demise of the father, both the respondents have become tenants and hence there is no sub lease or transfer. 2. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, B1 to B11, Exts.C1 to C3, PW1 an RW1 and 2. PW1 was Sudharsanan Pillai, the defacto claimant for the building. His evidence inspired the Rent Control Court. In fact, the tenants also admitted in their evidence that Sudharsanan Pillai is presently without any job or avocation though their contention in the statement of objection is otherwise. The court held that the need is bona fide. The court further held that the landlord did not have vacant possession of any other building at the time of commencement of the Rent Control Petition. The Court also held that the tenant was unsuccessful in showing that he satisfies either of the ingredients of the second proviso. Accordingly, the order of eviction under RCR.No.306/2010 3 Section (3) was passed. As regards the ground of sub lease, the first respondent admitted that the lease is governed by rent chit executed by the first respondent in favour of the landlord. The court found that there was nothing in evidence to support the contention that the original tenant was the father of the respondent. In fact, it was admitted by RW2 in his evidence that the building has been sub let by RW1 in favour of RW2. The learned Rent Control Court accepted the above evidence and ordered eviction on the ground of sub letting also. 3. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of eviction. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised and Sri. B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of all the grounds. Mr.Suresh Kumar highlighted that the landlord was having five other rooms which were identical to the petition schedule rooms. There was no justification for the landlord to have picked and chosen the petition schedule RCR.No.306/2010 4 building itself for the alleged need of Sri.Sudarshana Pillai, his son. The action of the landlord is actuated by oblique motives. The learned counsel submitted that the finding of the statutory authorities regarding the identity of the building is wrong. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, considering the social relationship between RW1 an RW2, the court should have concluded that the arrangement between them is not one of sub lease or transfer, but it is one of permission only. The learned counsel argued that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities or improprieties justifying interference under Section 20. As a last plea, the learned counsel requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioners for surrendering the premises. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of Mr.Suresh Kumar. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. Under this jurisdiction, we are not expected ordinarily to make reappraisal of the evidence or substitute our conclusions of facts for conclusions RCR.No.306/2010 5 arrived at by the final fact finding Authority, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, when such conclusions are founded on evidence actually available on record. As already stated, in the instant case, it was admitted by the tenant that Sri.Sudharsana Pillai, the son of the landlord, is without any job or avocation. In the light of such admission, the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide is sustainable. Then the question is whether the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. We are of the view that the finding of the statutory authorities that, RW1 in the RCP the first revision petitioner is the tenant, is based on quality evidence including the admissions of the tenant himself. It is admitted that RW1, the first revision petitioner, is not conducting any business in the petition schedule building and that he is employed with KSEB. When that is the situation, there is no question of Court upholding the contention that the first revision petitioner is seeking out his livelihood by carrying out business. This means that the first ingredient of the second proviso will have to be found against the first revision petitioner. When the first ingredient is decided against the first revision RCR.No.306/2010 6 petitioner, it will follow that the first revision petitioner will not be entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. We do not find any infirmity about the finding regarding the liability of the tenant to suffer order of eviction under Section 11(4)(i). Evidently and admittedly the first revision petitioner is not in possession at all. He is employed in KSEB. The question is whether the second revision petitioner has acquired the status of the tenant. It is in evidence that the original lease is in favour of the first revision petitioner . When that is the situation, there cannot be any infirmity about the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(i). The RCR fails and accordingly will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk