IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 442 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.109/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE RCP.43/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT .,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.VISWESWARAN, AGED 52, S/O.LATE MARIYAM KANDI ACHUTHAN, RESIDING AT MANIKYA NIVAS, KASABA AMSOM, KARYAKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. PRADEESH KUMAR, AGED 50, DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SMT.M.A.RUXANA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. P.C.INDIRA, AGED 60, W/O.LATE PADMANABHAN PILLAI, "SMRUTHI NIVAS", 29/2097 A, PALAPARAMBIL, P.O.KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOTTOOLI AMSOM AND DESOM,, KOZHIKODE. 2. T.P.SHEENA, AGED 38, W/O.LATE PRASANTH KUMAR, -DO-. ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners and they challenge the order of eviction concurrently passed against them by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11 (3) and cessation of occupation without reasonable cause under Section 11 (4)(v). The landladys had invoked the grounds under Sections 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (iii) also. But eviction on those grounds was declined and the above order declining eviction on those grounds have become final and in this revision we need hve to be concerned only with the correctness of the eviction orders passed under Section 11 (3) and 11 (4)(v). The need projected by the landladies was that both of them are widows and the 2nd respondent in the revision petition , the daughter of the first respondent, needs the petition schedule building for conducting a fancy store as they are finding it extremely difficult WPC.No. 2 to pull off with meager rental income that they are getting from the petition schedule building. 3. The bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that the tenants are entitled for the protectin of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Claim under Section 11 (4)(v) was that the tenants, to whom the building had been let out and who had taken the building for conducting gold smithy business, had stopped the gold smithy business and is presently keeping the building ideal. The defence to the ground under Section 11 (4) (v) was that the revision petitioners stopped gold smithy as the same was not found profitable and had taken a decision to conduct a regular jewelery business in the petition schedule building. But, the local authority did not issue the license for conducting the jewellary on the reason that the revision petitioners/tenants did not produce no objection letter from the landladies. The revision petitioners approached this court and this court directed the local authroity to consider the revision petitioners' application for licence even in the absence of no objection letter from the landladies taking into account the fact that the revision petitioners are tenants already in WPC.No. 3 possession of the petition scheudle building. At last the revision petitioners are successful in obtaining licence. non occupation/non doing of business at the time when the commissioner conducted inspection and during the period made mentioned in the revision eptition due to reasonable cause that on account of the optimality of the landladies licence was not issued by the local authority and the revision petitioners were prevented in conducting jewellary business. In the enquiry coneducted by the Rent Control Court the evidence consisted of oral evidence of PWs1 and P2 and RW1. Documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1 and A2 and Exts.B1 to B4 and the commission report and plans Exts.C1 to . The PW1 was non other than the 2nd petitioner in the rent control petition who was really needy person. Her evidence was very inspiring and was accepted by the Rent Control Court. The court found that the need is bona fide. The court also found tht the tenants were unsuccessful in showing that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Coming to the ground under Section 11 (4)(v), the court placed strong reliance on Ext.C1 to C4 and held tht during the statutory period WPC.No. 4 of more than six months, the tenants had ceased to occupy the building. The cause mentioned by the tenants for their non occupation was not accepted by the Rent Control Court to be reasonable cause for the purpose of Section 11 (4) (v). Accordingly, order of eviction was passed both under Section 11 (3) and Section 11 (4) (v). 4. The revision petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 5. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised challenging the orders of eviction passed by the statutory authorities under Section 11 (3) and 11 (4)(v). We have heard Sri. Thomas Chazhukkaran learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Smt.T.V.Neema who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondents/landladies in anticipation of this revision . Mr. Thomas Chazhukkaran submitted tht concurrent though they may be the findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the context of both the WPC.No. 5 grounds are illegal, irregular and improper. The learned counsel submitted that the pleaded case was that the rental income which the landladies are presently deriving from the petition schedule building was not sufficient for their maintenance. It is clear that the intention in seeking eviction on the ground under Section 11 (3) was to let out the building or either to extract higher rent from the revision petitioners or to let out the building on much higher rent once eviction order was obtained. The revision petitioners are ready and willing to pay reasonable rent in accordance with the market rates. Coming to the ground under Section 1 (4)(v), the learned counsel submitted that this court has directed the local authority to consider the revision petitioners' application for licence for conducting jewellary even in the absence of no objection letter issued by the landladies. The landladies had deliberately refrained from issuing the no objection letter. It was because of that reason that the revision petitioners were unable to conduct jewellary business. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submited that the eviction order passed under both the grounds are unsustainable and has to be interfered. As a last submission, Mr.Chazhukkaran WPC.No. 6 submitted that this is a case where the settlement talks are on. According to the learned counsel, it is clear on reading the lines between the evidence recorded that the intention of the landladies is to get much higher rent which the revision petitioners had prepared to do. All the submissions of Mr.Chazhukkaran were opposed by Smt.T.V.Neema. She reminded us of the limits of our jurisdiction under Section 20 and submitted that, as reasonable findings have been entered concurrently by the two authorities, this court may not be justified in revision in upsetting those findings. We have considered all the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of our jurisdiction under SEction 20. The first question that arises for consideration is whether there is warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 for interfering with the judgmetn of the appellate authority. The above question, in our opinion, is to be answered in the negative. Under the statutory scheme, it is WPC.No. 7 the Appellate Authority which is the final court on facts. We find from the judgment of that authority PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk