IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 365 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.40/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TRIVANDRUM RCP.16/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- SIVASANKARAN NAIR, S/O.LATE GOVINDAPILLAI, AGED 80 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, VIJAYA TAILORING, T.C. 41/997, (OLD NO.59/1932) MANACAUD VILLAGE, MANACAUD P.O., MARKET JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, T.C.NO.41/136, VALIYA PADANNAV LANE, MANACAUD VILLAGE, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. VENUGOPAL, AGED 43 YEARS, T.C.NO.41/136, VALIYA PADANNAV LANE, MANACAUD VILLAGE, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, T.C.NO.41/136, VALIYA PADANNAV LANE, MANACAUD VILLAGE, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 365 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. The need projected by the landlords was that the building in question is required by way of additional accommodation, so that the landlords can conduct their STD booth and Photostat, lamination business in a more convenient way in the petition schedule building which enjoys the direct road frontage. 2. Though the bona fides of the need was disputed and the tenant contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11 (10), the Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, which consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Exts.B1 to B10, Ext.C1 commission report and the oral evidence of PWs 1 & 2 and CPW 1, would hold that the need is bona fide. It was further held that the advantages, which the landlord will RCR.No.365/2010 2 gain by getting eviction, will outweigh the hardships that may be sustained by the tenant. 3. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after making a reappraisal of the evidence concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. 4. One of the points, which was seriously raised by the tenant before the statutory authorities and in this court, is that the necessary factual foundation for the existence of ground under Sub Section (8) of Section 11 is not satisfied in this case. It was submitted by Sri.Madu Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant that the building presently under the occupation of the landlords and the petition schedule building do not form part of one large building. According to him, these are two buildings situated in a juxtaposed manner touching each other. That is not what is necessary for the establishment of a ground under sub section (8) of Section 11. 5. Even though Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan was very persuasive and his submissions were attractive, we do not think that in the present jurisdiction, which is revisional in nature, we will be justified in making reappraisal of the evidence and RCR.No.365/2010 3 upsetting the factual conclusions arrived in this regard by the two statutory authorities concurrently. 6. Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan would then submit that the revision petitioner is an octogenarian and that in this evening period of his life, it will be practically impossible for him to identify another building for shifting the business which accounts for his only means of livelihood. The learned counsel also submitted that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are under way for acquiring the building in question. Hence, According to him, it will never be possible for the landlords to accomplish their projected need which is recognised by the two statutory authorities. The land acquisition proceedings, according to the learned counsel, is a subsequent event which eclipses the landlords' need for additional accommodation. Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan placed before us the information supplied to his client under the Right to Information Act by the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority. We are told that these informations were marked as Exts.B10. Ext.B10 will certainly show that there is a proposal for widening the road which lies in front of the petition schedule building and it is also RCR.No.365/2010 4 probable that the building in question at least to a considerable extent falls within the alignment of the road widening. Hence, the request of the learned counsel was that the revision petitioner may be permitted to retain possession of the building so long as the building exists. 7. Submissions of Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan were not resisted before us by anybody as the landlords did not enter appearance before this court despite service of notice. 8. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. The only question which arises before us is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, warrants interference in this revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. According to us, the above question can be answered only in the negative. It has been concurrently found on the basis of evidence available on record that the petition schedule building and the building presently occupied by the landlords are parts a one large building. The landlords' evidence inspired the fact finding RCR.No.365/2010 5 authorities. The finding that the need for additional accommodation is bona fide cannot be successfully challenged in the present proceedings. The same is the position as regards the tenant's eligibility for the protection of the 1st proviso to sub section (10) of Section 11. In short, we do not find any reason for interference under Section 20 with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. There is some evidence in the case to accept Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan's submission that the L.A. proceedings are under way for acquiring the petition schedule building. The submissions of the learned counsel regarding the age of his client also has some appeal, particularly as those submissions are not resisted before us by the landlords. We feel that the revision petitioner can be granted time till 31/3/2012 to surrender the petition schedule premises subject to certain conditions. 9. The result is therefore as follows; i). The judgment of the Appellate Authority will stand confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed. ii). The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 31/12/2012 subject to following RCR.No.365/2010 6 conditions; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the landlords on or before 31/3/2012 and undertaking further through the same affidavit that occupational charges at the existing rent rate will also be paid till actual surrender is made. We make it clear that the revision petitioner/tenant will get benefit of time granted above only if the affidavit as directed above is filed and undertakings therein are honoured. However, we clarify that our judgment does not stand in the way of the land acquisition proceedings presently under way. If it becomes necessary for the land acquisition authority to take possession of the building, they are free to do so notwithstanding this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk