IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No.263 of 2003 --------------------------- RCA.13/2000 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.11/1998 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT ---------------------------------------------------------- C.N.SURENDRAN, S/O.LATE CHAMBALA NARAYANAN, RESIDING IN ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, OLLUKKARA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- CHAKKUNNY, S/O.CHIRAKEKKARA VARU, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, OLARIKKARA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, ALONG WITH RCR NO.266 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Since it is a common issue which arises in these revisions, we are disposing of these revisions by a common order. 2. The landlord challenges in these revisions the orders of the Rent Control Court and the judgments of the Rent Control Appellate Authority declining the order of eviction which was sought for on the ground of bona fide own occupation. In fact, the landlord had invoked the ground of arrears of rent also. But we are not concerned in these revisions by that ground since by making deposits order of eviction under that ground was got vacated. The landlord had invoked the R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -2- ground under clause (2) of sub Section 4 of Section 11 in one of the RCPs. Eviction was declined under that ground concurrently and we do not find any warrant for interfering with the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under clause 2 of sub Section 4 of Section 11. The only ground survives before us in these revisions is the ground of own occupation. 3. The need which was projected by the landlord was that he intends to convert the petition schedule buildings, adjacent to the room already under his occupation, as one building so that his dependant/wife PW1 can start an institute for teaching tailoring. It was PW1/the wife who gave evidence for proving the bona fides. In her evidence she stated that she intends not only to teach tailoring, but also to undertake tailoring R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -3- works. 4. The respondents/tenants would strongly dispute the bona fides of the need and the claim projected by the landlord. It was contended by them that the landlord's wife PW1 does not know tailoring. It was also pointed out by them that the landlord is already in possession of a vacant room. Alternatively it was contended by them that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. 5. At trial, evidence was taken and the Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence concluded that the landlord had failed in proving the bona fides of the need and claim. However, it was found on the basis of evidence that the tenants were unsuccessful in establishing that they are entitled for the protection of R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -4- the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. However, in view of the finding regarding the bona fides of the need, order of eviction was declined under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Appellate Authority also would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirm the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. 6. We heard the submission of Smt.K.A.Sanjeetha, the learned counsel for the petitioners and those of Smt.P.A.Anitha on behalf of Sri.Ranjith Thampan, the learned counsel for the tenants. Smt.Sanjeetha would assail the findings of the authorities below. According to her, the insistence of the authorities below that PW1 should have previous experience is not at all justified. She can gain experience only by starting the proposed venture. She R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -5- submitted that the observations of the Appellate Authority that despite the contention of the tenants that the landlord's wife does not even know tailoring, the landlord has not adduced evidence to show that the landlord's wife does not know tailoring, is incorrect. She read over to us the statement of objections filed by the tenants. She argued that the tenants have not contended that the landlord's wife does not know tailoring. The room in the vacant possession of the landlord is a tiny one in comparison to the rooms which are subject matter of the RCPs. The need projected is to start tailoring business in a big way which is possible only if all the three rooms are made available. 7. The submissions of Smt.Sanjeetha were very forcefully resisted by Smt.P.A.Anitha. She reminded us R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -6- of the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20. According to her, there is no warrant at all for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in this case. 8. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. 9. The pleaded case of the landlord is that his wife knows tailoring and that she wants to start a tailoring institute in the petition schedule buildings and in the vacant building already available, for teaching tailoring. This case was developed further at the time of evidence and it was stated that the proposed activity is not teaching of tailoring alone, but also execution of tailoring works. Had this been a case where PW1's knowledge of tailoring is admitted by the tenants, we would not have approved the action of the R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -7- authorities below in declining eviction on the reason that PW1 did not prove her experience. After all, one has to make a beginning for gaining experience. But this is a case where PW1 wanted as per pleadings to start a tailoring institute. Though not in so many words PW1's capacity and learning to start tailoring center has been disputed. That being so, the relevant fact to be proved by PW1 was her competence to start a tailoring school. We find that it is only her own ipse dixit which is relied on by her. She could have at least examined the person who taught her tailoring. She stated in evidence that she is working under a lady by name Chandra on piece rate basis. She could have examined at least the said Chandra and thereby proved not only that she knows tailoring, but also that she has some experience in executing tailoring works. R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -8- 10. Having regard to the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we will not be justified in concluding on the available evidence that the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently entered, is wrong. As already indicated, at the stage of evidence, PW1 stated that she intends to undertake tailoring works. If that be so, the question why PW1 did not undertake tailoring works from the vacant possession of the room in her husband's possession also assumes significance. Though commission was taken out in one of the RCPs for proving the ground under Section 11(4)(ii), the landlord did not feel like getting any evidence regarding the size of that room which is under his vacant possession. These are circumstances, relied on by the authorities below to decline order of eviction R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -9- under Section 11(3). We are of the view that the decision of the authorities below is justified on the evidence which was actually available on record before us. 11. At the same time, the submissions of Smt.Sanjeetha that if opportunity is given, the landlord will be able to prove that PW1 knows tailoring has some appeal to us. We are inclined to afford opportunity to the landlord. We also notice that the rent which is being paid by the tenants is very low taking into account the locality where the buildings are situated. We are inclined to re-fix the rent tentatively and prospectively subject to right of either of the parties to move the competent court for fixation of fair rent. The result of the above discussions therefore is as follows:- R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -10- 12. The orders of the Rent Control Court and the judgments of the Appellate Authority impugned in both these revisions are set aside. The Rent Control Appeals are remanded to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority will consolidate both the appeals. That authority will permit the landlord/appellant to adduce further evidence for proving that his wife/PW1 has knowledge of tailoring or that she has worked under Chandra. We remand the cases to the Appellate Authority for the purpose of avoidance of delay since we find that the Appellate Authority is fully competent in terms of Section 18(3) and Section 23 of the Rent Control Act to hold enquiry. 13. We tentatively re-fix the monthly rent payable by the tenant in RCP.10/98 at Rs.150/- with effect from 01/09/2009. Similarly, we also tentatively R. C. R. Nos.263 & 266 of 2003 -11- re-fix the monthly rent payable by the tenant in RCP.11/98 at Rs.200/- per month. It is open to either of the parties, if aggrieved, to move the competent court for fixing fair rent. Parties will appear before the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 17/08/09. The Appellate Authority will expedite matters and ensure that the revised judgment is passed in the appeals at the earliest and at any rate within two months of parties entering appearance. 14. Theses revisions are allowed by way of remand. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-