IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No.92 of 2010 ------------------------- RCA.38/2007 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,KOTTAYAM RCOP.45/2005 of PRL. RENT CONTROLLER, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------ M.C.MATHAI, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING IN USA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.T.THOMAS, ORIYON SUPER MARKET KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- BOBBY MANI , AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT THANNICKAL HOUSE PAKKIL PO,KOTTAYAM -12 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.92 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant is in revision. He challenges order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of cessation of occupation. The revision petitioner/tenant is conducting textile business in a building which is situated on the opposite side of the petition schedule building. The common case of the parties is that the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner for use as a godown for his textile business. The allegation of the landlord was R. C. R. No.92 of 2010 -2- that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than the statutory period of six months. An Advocate Commissioner who conducted a local inspection reported that there is no stock of textile goods in the petition schedule building. On the contrary, it was reported that she found a heap of tube lights, useless broken wooden planks, certain female dummies which was used in the textile shop, used disposable glasses, cool drink bottles, gunny bags, heaps of waste, plastic buckets etc. It was clearly reported that there were no signs whatsoever in the building of its use as a godown for textile material for the past five years. Even though statement of objections was filed by the revision petitioner to the reports submitted by the Commissioner, the R. C. R. No.92 of 2010 -3- revision petitioner did not examine the Commissioner as a witness on his side for the purpose of cross examination. On the contrary, the landlord examined the Commissioner as PW3 and the evidence adduced by PW3 inspired the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. It is mainly on the basis of PW3's evidence that the authorities below came to the conclusion that the ground under section 11(4)(v) stood established. We notice that the evidence on the side of the tenant was his solitary oral evidence as CPW1. If as a matter of fact, the building was being used by the tenant as a godown as he claims, there should have been documents such as stock registers etc. which would prove the same. The non-production of any convincing documents R. C. R. No.92 of 2010 -4- showing that the building is used by the tenant as godown as claimed by him, in our opinion, is another circumstance which supports the factual conclusion entered by the fact finding authorities namely the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. In this jurisdiction under section 20, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute our conclusions of fact for those conclusions arrived at by the fact finding authorities especially when they are based on evidence. We notice that the finding of the authorities that the eviction ground under section 11(4)(v) is made out, is founded on evidence. We are of the view that there is no warrant at all for interference within the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. R. C. R. No.92 of 2010 -5- 2. Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner submitted that apart from the present RCP, the landlord has simultaneously initiated proceedings to evict as many as twelve tenants including the revision petitioners from different portions of a larger building, a portion of which only is the petition schedule building. Eviction ground invoked in those petitions is section 11(5). Under section 11 (5), it is only a temporary order of eviction that is passed against the tenant who will be entitled to re-enter the building subject to his liability to pay higher rent. The learned counsel submitted that if this Court permits immediate execution of the order of eviction passed in this case, the revision petitioner will be deprived of that benefit. Hence, R. C. R. No.92 of 2010 -6- he requested that the RCR may be kept pending till such time as the Rent Control Appeals preferred by the landlord in the other RCPs are disposed of. 3. We are not inclined to accede to the above request of the learned counsel since under section 20, our look out is only whether any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by section 20 tainting the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. However, we feel that on the totality of the circumstances attending on this case, the execution court can be directed to defer execution for a period of six months. R. C. R. No.92 of 2010 -7- 4. The result of the above discussion is that the RCR fails and the same stands dismissed confirming the order of eviction. The execution court, however, is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building for a period of six months from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE kns/-