IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 388 of 2010() ------------------------ (RCA NO.131/2006 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY THRISSUR IN RCP NO.40/2002 RENT CONTROL COURT, CHAVAKKAD) REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RSPONDENTS 2,7-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V. RAJAN,S/O. KOLLANNUR VARADAPPAN, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE DESOM,KIZHAKKE ANGADI, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. MOLY BABU, W/O. KOLLANNUR BABU, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE DESOM,KIZHAKKE ANGADI, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. JOSE, S/O. KOLLANNUR BABU, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE DESOM,KIZHAKKE ANGADI, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. SHOJ, S/O. KOLLANNUR BABU, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE DESOM,KIZHAKKE ANGADI, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. ELIYAMMA, W/O. PANAKKAL JACOB, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE DESOM,THALAPPILLY TALUK-680503 2. JACOB.P.MATHEW, S/O.PANAKKAL JACOB, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE DESOM,THALAPPILLY TALUK-680503 3. KURIAKOSE JACOB.P.,S/O.PANAKKAL JACOB, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE DESOM,THALAPPILLY TALUK-680503 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 388 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, Thrissur confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The need projected by the respondents is that the first respondent, the landlady, requires the petition schedule building, so that she can use a portion of the building for doing embroidery work, cutting and stitching etc. and the other portion can be utilised as a shop room for the sale of Maxi, Churidar, etc. It was averred in the rent control petition itself that the respondents do not have any other building in their possession suitable for satisfying the need projected. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the RCR.No.388/2010 2 revision petitioners who also contended that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. The rent control court conducted enquiry and in the enquiry the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of PWs 1 & 2 (PW1 being the first respondent herself) and that of RWs1 and 2, (RW1 being the first revision petitioner himself). Documentary evidence consisted of Ext.A1 to A8 series and also Exts.B1 to B6 series apart from Ext.C1 report submitted by an advocate commissioner on the basis of a local inspection. The rent control court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlords was bona fide and also that the tenants were unsuccessful in establishing that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section(3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (3). 3. The tenants preferred an appeal to the rent control appellate authority. The learned appellate authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the rent control court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. RCR.No.388/2010 3 4. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the appellate authority. Even though Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners, addressed arguments on the basis of all the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision, the learned senior counsel give more thrust to his argument that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The learned counsel drew our attention to Ext.C1 commission report and sketch prepared by the advocate commissioner. He submitted that it has been clearly reported by the advocate commissioner that door No.4/70 situated on the western side of the petition schedule building is under the vacant possession of the landlords. The tenants' case is that the landlords are guilty of suppressing material fact of their possessing a vacant building with them. In the absence of proper pleadings as to special reasons, the statutory authorities should not have held that despite the landlords having possession of vacant room, the eviction order is liable to be passed . RCR.No.388/2010 4 5. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel. We have perused the sketch which was submitted by the advocate commissioner along with Ext.C1 report. We have considered the pleadings raised by the landlords in the rent control petition. What we notice from the pleadings in the rent control petition is that the specific pleading of the landlords is that they did not have ownership and possession of any suitable buildings. Their case in evidence is that Room No.4/70 reported by the advocate commissioner to be under the vacant possession of the landlords is quite unsuitable for the need projected by them. Having gone through the advocate commissioner's report and the sketch, copy of which is placed before us by the learned senior counsel himself, we find that door No.4/70 is a very small room which does not have direct frontage of Guruvayoor Road unlike the petition schedule building which is a fairly large building. The building bearing Door No.4/70 has direct frontage of only a passage which seems to be a narrow one. We also notice that the landlords have a case that Door No.4/70 is being utilised by RCR.No.388/2010 5 them as a godown for the stationary business which is conducted by them in Door No.4/68. Whatever that be, we are convinced, on the basis of the sketch, that the landlords cannot be blamed for not having disclosed the availability of door No.4/70 with them and also for not giving special reason in the context of the first proviso to section 11 (3). We hold that the landlords are having special reasons for insisting on getting possession of the petition schedule building itself. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the findings concurrently entered by the statutory authorities against the revision petitioners. The revision petition necessarily has to fail. 6. Mr.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel would now make a last appeal that the revision petitioners being granted unusually long period of time to surrender the premises in which they have been conducting the medical shop business for more than 47 years. We feel that on facts and circumstances attending on this case there is justification for granting long period of time to surrender the premises. Even as we dismiss the RCR, we are inclined to issue notice to the respondents for RCR.No.388/2010 6 determining the duration of time to be granted to the revision petitioners for surrendering the premises. The Result is that the revision petition is dismissed confirming the judgment of the appellate authority. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk