IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 211 of 2010(A) ------------------------------ RCA.41/2009 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.20/2008 of ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT (RCC), TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------- S.DEVARAJ, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. SUBBIAH REDDIAR, 4TH STREET, YAMUNA NAGAR, T.C. 39/1790, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DOING BUSINESS AT BALAMURALI BEDS, T.C. 38/158, POWER HOUSE ROAD, CHALAI.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------- N.RAJALEKSHMI AMMAL, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. MOHANAN, RESIDING AT T.C. 38/157, POWER HOUSE ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.211 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner by the statutory authorities concurrently on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation (section 11(2) and Section 11(3) respectively). The prominent contention which was raised by the revision petitioner was denial of landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A6, R1 to R17, C1 Commission Report, R. C. R. No.211 of 2010 -2- Oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and CPWs.1 and 2 came to the conclusion that the denial of landlord- tenant relationship between the parties made by the revision petitioner was without bona fides. That court also concluded that the need projected was bona fide and that rent was in arrears as alleged. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed on both grounds on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and arrears of rent under Section 11(2). But eviction was declined on other grounds. As the order declining order of eviction on those grounds has become final, we need be concerned only with the grounds of eviction under Section 11(2) and 11 (3). 2. The Appellate Authority reappraised the R. C. R. No.211 of 2010 -3- entire evidence. That authority concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the RCR. 3. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.G.S.Reghunath, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of all the grounds. Sri.Reghunath submitted that in a case where the existence of landlord- tenant relationship between the parties is denied, it is fundamental that the statutory authorities enter finding regarding the bona fides of such denial. Though not in a satisfactory manner, the Rent Control Court considered the above R. C. R. No.211 of 2010 -4- contention; the Appellate Authority which is the statutory appellate authority to re-consider the said contention has not chosen to consider that contention at all. According to Mr.Reghunath, the non-consideration of the above vital contention by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is a grave illegality/irregularity/impropriety which would justify invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Sri.Reghunath would assail the findings entered by the statutory authorities in the context of arrears of rent in Section 11(3) also. Sri.Reghunath submitted that the building in question was actually constructed by the revision petitioner. He drew our attention to Ext.B3 and submitted that there is sufficient indication in R. C. R. No.211 of 2010 -5- Ext.B3 itself that the building was constructed by the revision petitioner himself. He even asserted before us, obviously as instructed by his client that going by the Property Tax Assessment Register pertaining to the building in question, the ownership of the building is with the revision petitioner. In view of that assertion, we directed him to produce the relevant extract of the Property Tax Assessment Register maintained by the Local Authority in respect of this building. Today, he placed before us a copy of the above Property Tax Assessment Register and conceded that as per that Register, from 1972 onwards the building remains assessed in the name of the respondent only. 5. We have very anxiously considered all the R. C. R. No.211 of 2010 -6- submissions of Sri.Reghunath. We have gone through Ext.B3, a copy of which was given to us by Sri.Reghunathan. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel that Ext.B3 will support the case of the revision petitioner that it was the revision petitioner who constructed the building and that the ownership of the building is with the revision petitioner. Ext.B3 in our view at best will show that some amounts were advanced by the revision petitioner towards construction cost and even going by Ext.B3, the status of the revision petitioner is only that of somebody who constructed the building on behalf of the respondent. The Property Tax Assessment Register placed before us today by the learned counsel is a document as contemplated by Section R. C. R. No.211 of 2010 -7- 26 of Act 2 of 1965. Such documents enjoy considerable probative value under the scheme of the Rent Control Act. When the above document shows that the building is owned by the respondent, it is idle for the revision petitioner to contend that he owns the building. In this jurisdiction under Section 20 we are not expected to make a re-appraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting factual conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities especially when such conclusions are founded on evidence. 6. Having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, we are of the view that those findings are founded on evidence and are reasonable findings. In our opinion there R. C. R. No.211 of 2010 -8- is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision will necessarily have to fail. The RCR is dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-