IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM. FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 305 of 2007() ----------------------------------- RCA.183/2002 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY RCP.205/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.V. PREMAVALLY WIFE OF DECEASED M.K. KUNHIKANNAN, RETD. TEACHER, RESIDING AT PACIFIC, KUTHUPARAMBA. 2. PRADIU, SON OF DECEASED M.K. KUNHIKANNAN, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 3. PRATHEESH, SON OF DECEASED M.K. KUNHIKANNAN, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH, MR.R.AZAD BABU, MR.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR). RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K. KRISHNA SAI PRASAD, SON OF GOPALAN VYDIAR, "SREE SAI NILAYAM", PACHAPOIKA, PANUNDA, VIA KUTHUPARAMBA. 2. V. BALAN, SON OF KOTTAN, SRAP, ADVOCATE, TELLICHERRY. 3. KRISHNAKUMARI, AGED 56 YEARS, WIDOW OF ADVOCATE K. SADANANDAN, "ANJALI", NEAR KERALA TALKIES, KUTHUPARAMBA, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM. 4. SON K.DEVANAND, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 5. BROTHER PREMANAND, DO. DO. DO. 6. SISTER PRIYA, RESIDING AT DO. DO. DO. R1 BY ADV. MR.V.RAJAGOPAL, MR.P.M.MOHAMMED SHAREEF. R3 BY ADV. MR.G. MOHAN. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.C.R. NO.305/2007-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE PETITION/PLAINT IN RCP 47 OF 2007 FOR FIXATION OF RENT FILED BEFORE RENT CONROL COURT (MUNSIFF), KUTHUPARAMBA. ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT BUSINESS IN THE GROUND FLOOR OF PETITION SCHEDULE BUILDING. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- RCR.NO. 305 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction on the ground under sub section 8 of section 11 on various grounds raised in the RCR. In this court I.A.No.1538/2011 is filed by the tenants seeking reception of Annexures I and II as additional items of evidence. Annexures I and II are copies of the fair rent fixation proceedings which was compromised between the parties. In short it is sought to be argued on the basis of Annexures I and II that as the parties came to a compromise regarding fair rent payable in respect of the building, the need for additional accommodation found by the appellate authority is to be found not genuine. 2. We are not inclined to allow I.A.No.1538/2011. Annexures I and II will show that the parties compromise d proceedings subsequently initiated for fixation of fair rent. The petitioner- tenant is a lawyer. Petitioner-tenant thought that it is the obligation of any tenant to pay reasonable and fair rent for the building possessed by him. He would have relied on the decision of this court as confirmed RCR.305/2007 2 by the Supreme Court in Edger vs. Ferus Abraham Itty Cheria (2009(4) KLT 673 (SC) while deciding to compromise in the fair rent proceedings. 3. Admittedly and evidently the landlord is in possession of a portion of a larger building and the tenant is in possession of another portion (upstair portion of the same building). The tenant, a lawyer is conducting his office in the upstair portion. The landlord is conducting an Ayurvedic Pharmacy in the ground floor portion and on the rear side the landlord is conducting photostat, lamination and allied business. The need for additional accommodation projected in the RCP is to expand the above business by installing a public telephone booth. One circumstance which was highlighted by the tenant to show that the above need for additional accommodation is not bonafide was the circumstance of the landlord permitting one Sathyan to install a telephone booth allotted to him by the telephone department under the scheme for sanctioning telephone booth to physically disabled persons. The door number of the portion where the above telephone booth is installed is room No.176. The answer of the landlord to the above circumstance was that under Ext.A5 agreement between the landlord and Sathyan it is the landlord who is conducting the telephone booth business. Learned appellate authority on appreciating the RCR.305/2007 3 evidence of the landlord given by him as PW1 thoroughly and critically, has come to the conclusion that the action of the landlord in allowing installation of the telephone booth allotted to Sathyan in room No.176 will not tell upon the bonafides of the claim for additional accommodation. The landlord has stated that he executed Ext.A5 as an effective document. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has actually accepted Ext.A5 to be a document which has been acted upon by the parties. The appellate authority noticed the finding of the Rent Control Court that Ext.A5 to the extent it bypasses the order under which telephone booth was alloted to Sathyan, a disabled person, offend public policy. But according to the appellate authority the question that arose was whether the action of the landlord in conducting the booth allotted to Sathyan on the strength of Ext.A5 can be said to affect the bonafides of the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlord. It is held by various decisions of this court that the standards of evidence for proving the bonafides of the need under sub section 8 for additional accommodation are not so rigorous as the standards which are expected to be established in a need for own occupation under section 3. The appellate authority has rightly found that the landlord in this case has proved that he bonafide needs the premise in the possession RCR.305/2007 4 of the revision petitioner for additional accommodation for his personal use. Under the statutory scheme the appellate authority is the final court on facts. This court in revision is not normally expected to substitute findings of fact entered by the final fact finding authority. As for the finding entered by the Appellate authority in this case on the core question whether the need for additional accommodation can be said to be not bonafide. In view of Ext.A5, we hold that the appellate authority's finding is a correct one. At any rate the above finding is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20. Hence the revision fails and the same is dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that as the revision petitioner is an Advocate practising his profession in the building for quite some time he should be allowed one years time to surrender the premises. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the landlord. According to him granting more than six months will not be justified. According to us a period of one year for surrendering the premises will be justified. Hence we direct the execution court to grant time till 31.7.2012 subject to the following condition. 5. The revision petitioner will swear to an affidavit before the RCR.305/2007 5 Rent Control Court or the execution court as the case may be within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the landlord-respondent on or before 31.7.2012 and undertaking further that he will discharge the arrears of rent if any within one month and will pay the fair rent fixed under Annexures I and II without fail, as and when the same falls due. If affidavit is not filed the petitioner will not get benefit of time as allowed above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ RCR.305/2007 6