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 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No. 174 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.109/2006 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.7/2000 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLENCHERRRY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- RAJU, S/O POULOSE, S.G PRESS ELAMKULAM KARA,KOLENCHERY P.O. 682 311 IYKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- ANNAMMA. W/O.GEORGE KAZHUNILATHIL,PERINGOLE KARA, IYKKANARADU NORTH VILLGE, REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAJI, S/O.GEORGE, KAZHUNILATHIL, PERINGOLE KARA, IYKKARANADU NORTH, VILLAGE. (DIED) ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 2. K.G. SUNNY, AGED 51, S/O GEORGE, KAZHUVILATHIL HOUSE, PERINGALA KARA, IYKKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE. 3. SAJI K.GEORGE, AGED 44, S/O GEORGE, DO. 4. VARGHESE K.GEORGE, AGED 41 S/O GEORGE, DO. THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 VIDE ORDER DATED 29-10-09 IN IA.2811/09. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM FOR R SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR ADDL.R 2 TO 4 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 175 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RCR. No. 174 & 175 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner in both these revision petitions. RCR. No. 174 of 2009 corresponds to RCA. No. 109 of 2006 which in turn corresponds to RCP. No. 7 of 2000. RCR. No. 175 of 2009 corresponds to RCA. No. 48 of 2005 which in turn corresponds to RCP. No. 6 of 2000. The common grounds which were invoked in both these revision petitions were the ground of arrears of rent [Section 11(2)(b)], bona fide need for own occupation [Section 11(3)] and the ground of requirement of reconstruction [Section 11(4)(iv)]. In RCP. No. 6 of 2000, additional ground of cessation of occupation under clause (v) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 was also invoked. The Rent Control Court tried both the rent control petitions jointly and allowed the petitions on the ground of arrears of RCR. Nos. 174 & 175 of 2009 - 2 - rent and bona fide own occupation. In RCP.No. 6 of 2000 the petition was allowed on the ground of cessation of occupation. In RCP. No. 7 of 2000 what the Rent Control Court did was to allow the petition under Section 11(4)(iv) and to direct that the tenant will be entitled to be re- inducted into the building after reconstruction in terms of third proviso to clause (iv) of sub-section (4) of Section 11. 2. Tenants preferred appeals. The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court substantially on all the grounds. However, the re-induction right which had been given to the tenant in RCP. No. 7 of 2000 was vacated on the reason that though ground under Section 11(4)(iv) was also invoked the petition lies under Section 11(3) only. In that context, it was also found by the Rent Control Appellate Authority that due to the relevant subsequent event of the Municipal Building Rules being extended to Kolencherry where the building is situated it may not be possible for the landlord to have a new building RCR. Nos. 174 & 175 of 2009 - 3 - constructed as proposed by him originally in the plan which had been produced along with the rent control petition. The Appellate Authority also relied on various decisions which take the view that in a case where the need projected by the landlord is to have own occupation of the new building after demolishing and reconstructing the old one, then, even if Section 11(4)(iv) is also invoked enquiry can be confined to sub-section (3) of Section 11. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us very strenuously and extensively on the various grounds raised in the rent control revision. According to him, the action of the learned Appellate Authority in having vacated the direction of the Rent Control Court in RCP. No. 7 of 2000 that the tenant in that case should be re-inducted into the new building was illegal. He submitted that it was the tenant who had filed the appeal and the respondent landlord had not preferred memorandum of cross-objection even. In the absence of RCR. Nos. 174 & 175 of 2009 - 4 - any memorandum of cross-objection by the landlord the Appellate Authority ought not have vacated the directions of the Rent Control Court in the context of the third proviso to clause (iv) sub-section (4) of Section 11 thereby resulting very serious prejudice to the tenant in that case. The immediate answer of Mr.V.Rajendran Perumbavoor, learned counsel for the landlord was that it was unnecessary for the landlord petitioner in these cases to have invoked the ground under section 11(4)(iv) also. According to him, the averments made by the landlord in the context of the need projected under sub-section (3) of Section 11 will show that the need was to occupy the entire building after reconstruction. He submitted that the RCP was instituted at a time when the Building Rules were not applicable to Kolencherry. At that time it would have been possible for the landlord to have a new building larger in size than the existing building. But now that the Building Rules have been extended to the area and approved building plan RCR. Nos. 174 & 175 of 2009 - 5 - became necessary, when the new building is constructed in terms of the approved plan, the total area which will be available in the new building will not be more than what was available in the old building. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner at this juncture drew our attention to the plan approved by the local authority. He submitted that going by the approved plan also it will be possible for the landlord to accommodate the petitioner in RCR No. 174 of 2009 at least in the first floor of the building, so that he can carry on his business subject to liability to pay fair rent. In view of the above controversy we directed Mr.Rajendran Pevumbavoor, learned counsel for the landlord to get in touch with his client immediately and seek instructions as to whether the landlord will be prepared to accommodate the petitioner in RCR No. 174 of 2009 in the first floor of the proposed new building subject to his liability to pay rent at the current rates. In response to the same, Mr.Rajendran reported to RCR. Nos. 174 & 175 of 2009 - 6 - us after lunch that the respondents are ready and willing to re-induct the petitioner in RCR. No. 174 of 2009 into the first floor of the prospective new building on condition that he will pay rent at the rates presently prevailing in Kolencherry town. 5. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, this Court does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence. Even though revisional court is not with power to reappraise the evidence, reappraisal if at all, can only be for the purpose of finding out whether the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, is tainted by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. As for the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b), it was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no scope for challenging that order and that it will suffice if time is granted to have that order vacated by making deposits in terms of Section 11(2) (c). Accordingly, we grant to the revision petitioners one RCR. Nos. 174 & 175 of 2009 - 7 - more month's time from today to have the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) vacated by making deposits. 6. The prominent ground on which eviction order is passed is ground under sub-section (3) of Section 11. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that all the findings entered by the authorities below in the context of that ground are reasonable findings well founded on evidence which was available on record. Those findings are not tainted with any illegality or irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20. 7. As for the order of eviction passed against the tenant in RCP No. 6 of 2000, we notice that there was very cogent evidence before the Rent Control Court to find that the tenant in that case ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months without any reasonable cause. That finding according to us, being founded on evidence, is not open to challenge in this RCR. Nos. 174 & 175 of 2009 - 8 - revision under Section 20. As for the action of the learned Appellate Authority in vacating the re-induction benefit under third proviso to clause (iv) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 which had been given to the petitioner in RCR. No. 174 of 2009, we are of the view that it is on a sound reasoning that the learned Appellate Authority vacated the above finding. However, since it is conceded before us on behalf of the respondents that the respondents are ready and willing to re-induct the petitioner in RCR No. 174 of 2009 into the first floor of the proposed new building subject to his liability to pay current rate of rent, we set aside that part of the judgment of the Appellate Authority in RCA. No. 109 of 2006 and restore the direction issued in that regard by the Rent Control Court. In all other respects, the judgment of the Appellate Authority will stand confirmed. 8. The respondents are directed to complete the reconstruction of the building within one year from today and to re-induct the revision petitioner in RCR. No. 174 of RCR. Nos. 174 & 175 of 2009 - 9 - 2009 alone into 300 sq. ft. of area in the first floor of the proposed new building after reconstruction subject to his liability to pay the rent at the rates prevailing in Kolencherry town. We are not inclined to grant this relief to the revision petitioner in RCR No. 175 of 2009 in view of the finality which is being given to the order of eviction passed against him on the ground of cessation of occupation. RCRs are disposed of as above. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-