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 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No.104 of 2010 -------------------------- RCA.148/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.7/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT (RENT CONTROL), THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- NHATTIALPUTHIYAPURAYIL AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O MOOSANKUTTY HAJI, 50 YEARS, HAFEESAMANZIL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, NEAR KAYEESAHIB TRAINING COLLEGE, KARIMBAM (PO) BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- 1. CHULLIYODAN PATTUVAMVALAPPIL UNDAPARAMBIL NAFEESA, W/O KODIYIL MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, 63 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KARIMBAM (PO). 2. CHULLIYODAN PATTUVAMVALAPPIL UNDAPARAMBIL SUBAIR MUHAMMED, S/O KODIYIL MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, REP. BY THE P.A. HOLDER CHULLIYODAN PATTUVAM VALAPPIL UNDAPARAMBIL MUHAMMED AJMAL, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KARIMBAM (PO). 3. CHULLIYODAN PATTUVAMVALAPPIL UNDAPARAMBIL MUHAMMED IQUBAL, S/O KODIYIL MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, 37 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KARIMBAM (PO) 4. CHULLIYODAN PATTUVAMVALAPPIL UNDAPARAMBIL SUHARABI, D/O KODIYIL MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, 34 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KARIMBAM (PO). RCR.104/2010 -2- 5. CHULLIYODAN PATTUVAMVALAPPIL UNDAPARAMBIL MUHAMMED AJMAL, S/O KODIYIL MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, 29 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KARIMBAM (PO) 6. CHULLIYODAN PATTUVAMVALAPPIL UNDAPARAMBIL FASEEMA, D/O KODIYIL MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, 27 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KARIMBAM (PO) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.104 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant is in revision. He challenges the orders of eviction concurrently passed against him by the statutory authorities on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. As for the order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent, we are of the view that since there is no dispute regarding the contract rent and the revision petitioner/tenant did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his plea of discharge and since the order of eviction is a tentative one which is liable to be vacated by R. C. R. No.104 of 2010 -2- making requisite deposits under section 11(2)(c), in revision, we need not interfere with the above order. 2. As for the order of eviction passed under section 11(3), the need projected in the RCP by the landlords was that the building is required bona fide for the occupation of the fifth petitioner in the RCP namely the fifth respondent herein so that he can conduct a stationery shop therein. Disputing the bona fides of the claim, it was contended by the revision petitioner that the fifth respondent is already conducting a stationery shop elsewhere. But the revision petitioner was unable to adduce any evidence which will show that the fifth respondent is conducting any other stationery shop. The Rent Control Court was R. C. R. No.104 of 2010 -3- impressed by the evidence given by the fifth respondent as PW1 and found that the need is bona fide. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. 3. In this revision under section 20 various grounds have been raised and Sri.P.Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of various grounds. Mr.Babu submitted that the authorities below cast the burden of proof wrongly upon the tenant in insisting that the tenant shall produce the documents to show that the fifth respondent is conducting business elsewhere. He also submitted that since admittedly, the fifth respondent is not the absolute owner of the R. C. R. No.104 of 2010 -4- building, his need to carry on independent business in the building should not have been accepted as a bona fide one. 4. We have considered the submissions. We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Keeping in mind the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20, we are of the view that there is absolutely no warrant for interference in this jurisdiction. The finding entered by the fact finding authorities are founded on evidence. According to us, it was the revision petitioner's burden to establish by adducing cogent evidence that the fifth respondent is already conducting a stationery shop elsewhere and hence has no need to conduct the proposed business in the petition schedule R. C. R. No.104 of 2010 -5- building. 5. Having failed to adduce any such evidence, he cannot now blame the courts below for having cast the burden of proof on the respondent. As for the arguments of the learned counsel that the 5th respondent is only a co-owner and he cannot be allowed to conduct his own independent business in the petition schedule building, we are of the view that in the present case where all the co-owners were joint petitioners in the RCP his argument cannot have any force at all. It is for the co-owners to decide that who among them should do what in any portion of the petition schedule building. In short, there is no warrant for interference in this revision. This revision necessarily has to fail and is R. C. R. No.104 of 2010 -6- dismissed accordingly. 6. However, considering the last plea of Sri.P.Babu that at least one year's time be granted to vacate the premises, we are inclined to grant to the revision petitioner time till 15/10/10 to surrender the premises subject to the following conditions:- 1) The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court on or before 20th May, 2010 undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the fifth respondent in the RCR and undertaking further to discharge the entire arrears of rent presently found by the courts below as due from her on or before 20/05/10 and also to pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.325/- per mensem thereafter till the R. C. R. No.104 of 2010 -7- date of actual surrender without fail. If such an affidavit is filed on time, the execution court will adjourn the E.P. to 16/10/10. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-