IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/24TH KARTHIKA 1933 RCR.No. 429 of 2011 ( ) =================== RCA.20/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY TRIVANDRUM RCP.7/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT. IN RCA-PETITIONER IN RCP ================================= 1 RAJASEKHAR S/O.AMBROSE RESIDING AT PRESENT IN PART OF TC.3/550 SHEENA BHAVAN TKD ROAD MUTTADA THIURVANANTHAPURAM-695 025 FROM ASSARIMAR THERUVU MANAVALAKURICHI KALKULAM TALUK KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU. BY ADV.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN RCA/RESPONDENT IN RCP . ================================ 1 R.SOMACHANDRAN S/O.RAMACHANDRAN RESIDING AT TC3/810 VARUVILAKATHU HOUSE KURUNGANOOR MURI KOOWDIAR VILLAGE MUTTADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 025. BY ADV. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 429 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is the revision petitioner and he is aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court declining eviction on the grounds under Section 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and Section 11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965 and granting eviction only on the ground of arrears of rent. The parties will be referred to as the landlord and the tenant. The case of the landlord was that he needs the petition schedule buildings two in number for the purpose of own occupation after demolishing them and putting up a new residential building. According to him, he is a heart patient receiving treatment from the Medical College Hospital at Thiruvananthapuram and hence he wants to set up residence near to the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College. RCR. 429/11 -2- Landlords stated that he is presently residing in a tenanted building near to the Medical College and he has been medically advised that he will need prolonged treatment. 2. The landlord's case regarding ground under Section 11(4)(iii) was that the tenant is in possession of building having door No. TC.3/810(1) and that the same is reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same city, town or village. The bonafides of the need under Section 11(3) was disputed by the tenant. It was contended that claims have been raised with malafide intentions as ruse to evict him. It was contended that the present RCP is barred under Section 15 of Act 2 of 1965. The very title document under which the landlord claims title has been created by the quantam landlord purporting to assign the building in favour of the present landlord with oblique motives. The document is a sham one. The tenant claimed protection of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11 as RCR. 429/11 -3- regards building having door No. T.C.3/810. It was contended that the said building is a residential building where the tenant is residing with family. The business which the tenant is carrying on in the petition schedule building cannot be shifted to that building. The Rent Control Court enquired into the contentions and at trial the evidence consisted of Ext.A1 to A13, B1 to B8 series, C1 and C2, X-1 to X-3, PWs. 1 to 3 and CPWs. 1 and 2. On appreciating the evidence he Rent Control Court found that the following seven points arise for decision in the RCP. 1. Whether there is any arrears of rent and the counter petitioner is liable to be evicted u/s. 11(2)(b) of the Act? 2. Whether the petitioner bonafide requires the petition schedule buildings for his own occupation? 3. Whether the counter petitioner is entitled to get the protection contemplated under the 2nd proviso to S. 11(3) of the Act? 4. Whether the counter petitioner is liable to be evicted u/s. 11(3) of the Act? RCR. 429/11 -4- 5. Whether the counter petitioner acquired a building reasonably sufficient for his requirements and thus he is liable to be evicted u/s. 11(4)(iii) of the Act? 6. Whether the petition scheduled building is in a condition that it needs the petition scheduled building for re-construction and the petitioner bonafide needs the petition schedule buildings for reconstruction and thus the counter petitioner is liable to be evicted u/s 11(4) (iv) of the Act? 7. Reliefs and cost? Point No. 1 regarding arrears of rent was answered in favour of the landlord and in this revision we need not be concerned with that ground as the same has already attained finality. Point Nos. 2 to 4 were considered jointly by the learned Rent Control Court. It was noticed by the Rent Control Court on the basis of the evidence that the landlord was a permanent resident of Manavalakurichi in Tamil Nadu. He was Panchayat Member and President of Manavalakurichi Panchayat. It was admitted by him in his evidence that previous RCP No. 38 of 2000 was filed by him along with Amarithanayakam, his former landlord invoking RCR. 429/11 -5- bonafide need for conduct of business after reconstructing the buildings. He conceded that the High Court ultimately rejected the claim under Section 11(3) by its order dated 5- 9-2007. The court noticed that atleast on 5-9-2007 when the High Court considered the earlier revision the landlord was maintaining that the building was needed for the purpose of conduct of business. The court found that the medical evidence produced by the landlord run contrary to his case that he was a cardiac patient. The evidence revealed that he was being treated mainly in the psychiatry department for psychiatric problems in connection with drunkenness. The court was not at all impressed with the evidence adduced by the landlord to show that he is presently living at Thiruvananthapuram in a rental house. The court held that the need under 11(3) projected in the present RCP was bona fide. The court also held that the tenant is entitled to get the protection of both the first and RCR. 429/11 -6- second limb of the second proviso as had been held earlier in the previous rent control proceedings. It was held that on this reason also the landlord was not entitled to order of eviction. The case under section 11(4)(iii) was turned down for the reason that the building pointed out by the landlord was the residential building where the tenant was residing with family. Coming to the ground under Section 11(4)(iv) it was found that no evidence was adduced to show that the condition of the building warranted reconstruction and that the landlord had the financial ability to to carry out reconstruction. For that reason eviction was declined under Section 11(4)(iv) also. The learned Appellate Authority considering an appeal preferred by the landlord would make a reappraisal of the evidence and concur with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds RCR. 429/11 -7- have been raised and Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed submissions before us based on all those grounds. But Mr. Krishnan would give more thrust in his submissions to the claim for eviction under Section 11(3). According to Mr. Krishnan, the statutory authorities were unduly prejudiced against the landlord and were unduly influenced by the earlier decision of this court to reject the claim under Section 11(3). Section 15 of Act 2 of 1965 does not have any application. Therefore bonafides of the need under 11(3) have to be decided independently. What was more important was whether the landlord was receiving treatment from Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Hospital and not as to what was the landlord's ailment. Appreciation of evidence by the statutory authorities was erroneous. Counsel requested that the order declining eviction be interfered with and the RCP be allowed atleast on the ground under sub- RCR. 429/11 -8- section (3) of Section 11. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar by Sri.P.B.Krishnan. We have gone through the judgments of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. The question which arises for decision by us is whether there is warrant for interference with the order concurrently passed by the two statutory authorities to decline eviction on the ground under Section 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(iv). We remind ourselves of the well delineated contours of our present jurisdiction under Section 20. In this jurisdiction we are not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting conclusions of fact arrived at by the fact finding authorities. As far as the present case is concerned, we find that the findings entered against the landlord by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently are reasonable findings based on RCR. 429/11 -9- evidence on record. According to us, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the finding that the revision petitioner landlord does not bonafide need the building in question for the purpose projected in the RCP. So also, the decision against the revision petitioner in the context of the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) is perfectly correct. The other building pointed out by the landlord is the residential building where the tenant is residing with family unlike the subject building where the tenant is conducting business. The need for reconstruction raised by the landlord in the present case integrally connected to his need for own occupation under Section 11(3). Once the need under Section 11(3) goes, the need for reconstruction will have to go. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the statutory authorities no evidence has been adduced to show that the condition of the building warrants reconstruction. In short, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the RCR. 429/11 -10- judgment of the Appellate Authority, the final fact finding authority under the scheme of the Rent Control Act, warranting interference in this revision. RCR will stand dismissed in limine. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) ksv/-