IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 98 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.73/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THRISSUR RCP.50/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN,AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.NANU, PURANDEKKATTIL, NEDUPUZHA DESOM, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.K.B.REKHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- P.P.RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 59 YEARS S/O.PARAMESWARAN, S/O.PANIKKAPPARAMBIL, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 98 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the order of eviction concurrently passed by the statutory authorities on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord contended that he is employed in Gulf and intends to come to his native place and to start a super-market after demolishing the petition schedule building and the adjacent building and after reconstruction of the same. It is further contended that he has no other building of his own to start such a super-market. 2. The claim was resisted by the tenant contending that earlier a Rent Control Petition was filed by the uncle of the present landlord. Though bona fide need was set up by him in that petition, it was found against and the RCP was dismissed. So, the unsuccessful uncle has chosen to execute a deed in the name of his nephew to see that the tenant is evicted from the RCR.No.98/2011 2 petition schedule building. It was further contended that Ext.A1 assignment sale deed is a sham document and was created only for the purpose of evicting the revision petitioner. It was further contended that the landlord, who was examined as PW1, is still in Gulf country and he was drawing a monthly income of Rs.3,50,000/- and so it is quite unlikely that he would come back to the native place only to start a super market. The tenant further contended that he is mainly depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building for his livelihood and that there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality for shifting his business. 3. After analysing the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Rent Controller held that plea that Ext.B1 is a sham document is not sustainable. It was further held that the bona fide need urged by the landlord is true. Since no satisfactory evidence was adduced for getting protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of section 11, the order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (3). 4. The learned Appellate Authority after reappreciating the evidence concurred with the order of eviction passed by the RCR.No.98/2011 3 Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant. 5. In this revision various grounds have been raised by the revision petitioner. Sri.B.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the impugned judgment warrants interference, since it is quite evident that Ext.B1 sale deed was executed by the former landlord only to see that the tenant is evicted as he could not succeed in getting him evicted. We have gone through the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. The fact that subsequent to the purchase the tenant had tendered rent to the landlord was not disputed. The learned counsel submits that 19 ½ cents of land was shown to have been sold only for paltry a sum of Rs.4,87,500/-. The fact that the present landlord is the nephew of the original landlord might have been the reason for showing lesser consideration; if at all the consideration shown in Ext.B1 is low. Except the contention raising a plea that Ext.B1 is a sham document, no other evidence could be adduced by the tenant. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the authorities RCR.No.98/2011 4 below have rightly held that the plea that Ext.B1 is a sham document is unsustainable. The learned counsel submits that even according to PW1(landlord), he can get only Rs.10,000/- as profit per month from the super market proposed to be started and so in all probability the need projected by the landlord is only a pretext for eviction. It is seen that the landlord had filed another rent control petition for evicting the tenant of the adjacent room and that was also allowed by the Rent Control Court. It was stated by the landlord that he intends to demolish both the rooms now situated under the common roof and to construct a larger building for the purpose of starting a super market. The fact that he is at present employed in Gulf may not be a reason to say that he should not come back and start the business as he proposed. Even if he may be getting huge amounts as salary or otherwise from his employment in Gulf, that should not preclude him from conducting business in his own native place. So the findings entered by the two statutory authorities cannot be said to be erroneous warranting invocation of the power under Section 20 of the Act. No satisfactory evidence was adduced by the tenant for getting the RCR.No.98/2011 5 protection under the second proviso to section 11(3). In view of what is stated above, We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the courts below. The revision petition is dismissed. Sri.B.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that for the last about thirty years, the tenant has been running a work shop in the petition schedule building and so on unusually long period of time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. We find that there is justification in the request made by the learned counsel. But we feel that the landlord has to be given notice to decide the question of time that has to be granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk