IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 248 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.68/2005 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THRISSUR RCP.43/2003 of RENT CONTROL COURT CHAVAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT : -------------------- GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. PANIKKAVEETTIL, THEKOOTT KOCHU AMMA, VENKIDANGU AMSOM, DESOM CHAVAKKAD THALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- KUNJIMON, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. MAYAMVEETTIL BAVU, VENKIDANGU AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD THALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 248 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the grounds under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. As regards the eviction order passed on the ground of arrears of rent, it was submitted by Sri.Rajit learned counsel for the revision petitioner at the very outset that it will suffice if this court grants a reasonably long period of time to make the requisite deposit for getting that eviction order vacated under Section 11(2)(c). In view of that submission, we need be concerned only with the correctness of the eviction order passed on the ground under Section 11(3). 2. The need projected by the landlord was that the building, where the tenant is presently conducting a hotel, is required bona fide for the occupation of his dependent son RCR.No.248/2011 2 Muhammed Kunjimon, so that he can conduct the same business for his livelihood. The bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that the rent control petition was liable to fail by virtue of the first and second provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. Before the Rent Control Court apart from the landlord and his son got themselves examined as PWs 1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the landlord. On the side of the revision petitioner tenant apart from his oral evidence as RW1, there was Exts.B1 and B2. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide. It was also concluded that the tenant was unsuccessful in showing that he satisfies the two ingredients of the second proviso to section 11(3). As regards the contention raised on the first proviso, it was noticed that the building which was available was only the rooms in the first floor which, even according to the tenant, were not suitable for conducting hotel business. It was rightly found by the Rent Control Court that those rooms are not suitable for conducting hotel business. On the basis of the above findings, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. RCR.No.248/2011 3 3. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the Revision Petitioner, made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.Rajit learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us very strenuously on the basis of all those grounds. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties as envisaged by Section 20. According to him, appreciation of evidence by the Rent Control Court and by the Appellate Authority was improper and this has resulted in denial of justice to the petitioner. 5. The persuasiveness of submissions of Mr.Rajith notwithstanding, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we find that the findings entered therein are reasonable findings based on evidence available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory fact findings authorities, viz. the Rent RCR.No.248/2011 4 Control Court and the Appellate Authority, on the basis of the evidence, this court is not expected ordinarily to upset those findings by venturing upon a de novo reappraisal of the evidence. It was not disputed that the son of the landlord was dependent on the landlord for the purpose of getting premises for conducting business. It has come out in evidence that the above son was without any avocation for his livelihood. When that is the situation, there is justification for presuming that the need is bona fide. No oblique motives as such were alleged and at any rate we do not find any warrant for invocation of this revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. The Revision Petition necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk