IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 272 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.53/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.106/2004 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, HOUSE NO.24/2464C (NEW NO.24/1042) PUTHUKULAM, PADANNA PARAMBIL, VALAYANAD AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 2 & LRs OF R3. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KADEESA UMMA, W/O.BASHEER, AGED 43 YEARS AYISHA MANZIL, PUTHUKULAM, PADANNA, MOORIYAD P.O. MANKAV, VALAYANAD AMSOM AND DESOM, CALICUT-7. 2. K.SURENDRAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, HOUSE NO.24/2464C (NEW NO.24/1042) PUTHUKULAM, PADANNA PARAMBIL, VALAYANAD AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. K.SURESH, S/O.LATE KOUSU ALIAS KAUSALLIA AGED 36 YEARS, KATHAYATH HOUSE, MAVATHI PARAMBA, NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. K.RAJESH, S/O.LATE KOUSU ALIAS KAUSALLIA, AGED 36 YEARS, KATHAYATH HOUSE, MAVATHI PARAMBA, NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 5. K.SATHEESAN, S/O.LATE KOUSU ALIAS KAUSALLIA, AGED 34 YEARS, KATHAYATH HOUSE, MAVATHI PARAMBA, NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 3381/2009 IN RC NO. 272/2009 DISMISSED 26/11/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE. SD/-.K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 272 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision, being aggrieved by the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlady was that she has three daughters and that the eldest among them viz.Ayisha Shabhana has come up marriageable age and that for providing her with a bridal ara, possession of the petition schedule building is needed. The bona fides of the need and the claim raised by the landlady was disputed by the revision petitioner/tenant. He contended that the house, in which the landlady and family are presently residing, is large enough and that if necessary bridal ara can be provided in that building itself. It was also contended that the custom if at all, is to provide bridal ara in the very family house itself and not in a separate building. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter. The evidence consisted of oral evidence of PW1, the landlady, RW1, the contesting tenant RCR.No.272/2009 2 and RW2, a neighbour, apart from Commission Reports C1 to C4, documents Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the landlady and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of the tenant. On appreciating the evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need projected was bona fide. It came out in evidence that by the time the Rent Control Petition was tried Ayisha Shabhana had got married and had gone abroad to join her husband. As regards the subsequent event of Ayisha Shabhana getting married and joining her husband abroad, the Rent Control Court noticed that by this time the second daughter had come of marriageable age and that at any rate bridal ara will have to be provided for the second daughter. Accordingly, eviction order under sub section (3) of Section 11 was passed by the Rent Control Court. 2. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner and reappraised the evidence. The Appellate Authority practically concurred with the Rent Control Court in all its conclusions and confirmed the order of eviction. 3. In this revision under Section 20 filed by the landlady, we have heard the submissions of Sri.K.M.Firoz, learned counsel for RCR.No.272/2009 3 the revision petitioner. The learned counsel addressed us on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. He submitted that the only need, which was projected in the Rent Control Petition, was the need to provide Ayisha Shabhana with bridal ara. That need does not survive any longer since Ayisha Shabhana is not here to occupy the petition schedule building at all. The reasoning of the authorities below that the second daughter has come of marriageable age is a case, which was not pleaded. To that extent, the order of eviction passed on the basis of that reasoning is illegal, irregular and improper. The learned counsel submitted that Exts.C1 to C4 are to the effect that there are three bed rooms in the building. Though the authorities below found that apart from the parents and daughters, the sister of the landlady's husband and her daughter are also residing in the family house, such a case had not been pleaded by the landlady at all. As his last plea, the learned counsel requested that atleast one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. 4. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have scanned RCR.No.272/2009 4 the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority carefully. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority appear to be of the opinion that the need projected by the landlady in the Rent Control Petition, which was to provide a bridal ara for the eldest daughter Ayisha Shabhana, ceased to exist on account of Ayisha Shabhana being married and her current stay in a foreign country along with her husband. This should be why the learned Authorities pointed out that the second daughter has already attained marriageable age. According to us, just because of Ayisha Shabhana is married to somebody who is employed abroad, the need of the landlady to provide her daughter with a bridal ara will not come to an end. It is in evidence that for confinement and delivery of the first child, Ayisha Shabhana came back to Kozhikode and stayed in the family house along with her parents. The tenant does not have a case that Ayisha Shabhana is permanently settled down in a foreign country and will never come back to her home town. In our opinion, marriage of Ayisha Shabhana and her stay abroad presently is not a subsequent event which eclipses the need which was found to be bona fide by both the authorities below RCR.No.272/2009 5 on the basis of the evidence including the oral evidence given by RW1, a witness cited by the tenant himself. We are not much impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that there are three bed rooms in the house of the landlady and if it becomes necessary one bed room can be provided to the daughter Ayisha Shabhana for use as a bridal ara. The Authorities have concurrently found appreciating the commission reports Exts.C1 to C4 that there are only two regular bed rooms in the building. It is true that, going by the pleadings, the sister of landlady's husband was not a resident of the landlady's house. But , it became evident in the case that sister of the landlady's husband and her daughter are also residing along with the landlady in her house. There appears to be some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the practice obtaining in Muslim family is that bridal ara will be provided in the family house itself. But, in the instant case the family house is too small to provide a bridal ara to the landlady's daughter. Even though the petition schedule building is an independent building, it is situated in close proximity to the building where the family resides. We do not think that there is any hard and RCR.No.272/2009 6 fast custom in the community that the bridal ara should be in the house where the parents residing itself. 5. Result of the above discussion is that we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction for interfering with the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. The RCR fails and will stand dismissed, but without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk