IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 290 of 2011 (B) ------------------------------- RCA.35/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.125/2004 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETIITONER(APPELLANT-2ND RESPONDENT) ------------------------------------------------- K.K.ACHUTHAN,AGED 65 YEARS,S/O.KUMARAN, KOKKATTIL HOUSE,KOLAZHY VILLAGE,DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK (AGRO ENTERPRISES,UMMUL KULSU BUILDING,P.O.ROAD, THRISSUR). BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS & ADDL.RESPONDENTS-1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUGATHAN,S/O.MALAPURATH AYYAPPAN,KOLAZHY VILLAGE DESOM,THRISSUR,PIN-680010. 2. MUHAMMED ANSARI,S/O.LATE MOIDEEN SHAH, GANDHI NAGAR,PERINGAVU.P.O,THRISSUR,PIN-680018. 3. MUHAMMED SALIM,S/O.LATE MOIDEEN SHAH, GANDHI NAGAR,PERINGAVU.P.O,THRISSUR,PIN-680018. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.290 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 ORDER Abdul Rehim, J This Revision Petition filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is instituted against the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court as well as by the Appellate Authority, under Section 11(3) of the Act on the ground of bonafide need of the landlady for own occupation of the tenanted premises. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlady sought eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i). The Rent Control Court declined eviction under Section 11(2)(b), but ordered eviction on both the grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(i). In appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(i), but confirmed the eviction under Section 11 R. C. R. No.290 of 2011 -2- (3). Hence, in the revision petition, the petitioner tenant is challenging the findings of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(3). 2. The need projected for own occupation is that the son of the landlady wanted to establish a business in textile in the scheduled building. Before the Rent Control Court, evidence was adduced by the landlady through oral testimony of her son for whom the need is put forth as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 documents were marked from the side of the landlady. The revision petitioner/tenant controverted the evidence by adducing Exts.B1 to B13 documents and oral testimony of himself as RW1. Ext.X1 series were marked as documents produced by witness. On evaluating the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the need put forth is most genuine and bona fide. Claim raised by the tenant seeking benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) was found against him. The Appellate Authority, which is R. C. R. No.290 of 2011 -3- the final fact finding court, after thorough reappraisal of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings arrived by the Rent Control Court with respect to ground for eviction urged under Section 11(3), and also with respect to the question regarding the benefit of the second proviso to that section. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner addressed various arguments challenging the findings, especially with respect to the findings on the question of the benefit under the second proviso to Section 11(3). It is contended that ample evidence was produced to show that the petitioner is solely depending on the income derived out of the business conducted in the premises and that no other suitable building is available in the locality for shifting of the business. But on an appreciation of the evidence adduced in this regard, both the courts below found that the revision petitioner could not establish the claim put forth in this R. C. R. No.290 of 2011 -4- regard. We take note of the settled legal position regarding the burden of proof to establish the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3), as held by this Court in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003(2) KLT 230) and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhamma v. Akkali Purushothaman (2007(3) KLT 99). 4. On an overall scanning of the impugned order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority and on a quick re-appraisal of the evidence on record, we do not find any material illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference of this Court, in exercise of the attenuated jurisdiction conferred, which is revisional in nature. Analysed on the basis of the settled legal position, we are not in a position to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner, that he had discharged the burden of proving necessary ingredients to claim the benefit under the second provision to Section 11(3). R. C. R. No.290 of 2011 -5- 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we find no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-