IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 RCRev..No. 423 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.3/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TIRUR RCP.39/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TIRUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PAREPARMBIL SUBRAMANIAN, 50 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKU, KOTT DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PAREPARAMBIL MADHU, 42 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKU, KOTT DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. PAREPARAMBIL SUNIL KUMAR, 28 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKU, KOTT DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. PAREPARAMBIL SUDHEESH, 25 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKU, KOTT DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. PAREPARAMBIL GEETHA, 53 YEARS, W/O.BABU, PAMBALATH HOUSE, MEENADATHUR DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. PAREPARAMBIL THANKAM, 45 YEARS, W/O.M.ASOKAN, MENOTHIL HOUSE, KUDANGAL DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. PAREPARAMBIL PREMA, 35 YEARS, D/O.CHAKKU, KOTT DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. PAREPARAMBIL BINDU, 31 YEARS, W/O.RIJU, NEDIYIL HOUSE, MEENADATHUR DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. DEVAKI, 68 YEARS, W/O.CHAKKU, KOTT DESOM, TIRUR-1, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.BIJU MARTIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. VINEESH KUMAR, 26 YEARS, S/O.THUPPAYIL APPUKKUTTAN, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VIJEESH KUMAR, 24 YEARS, S/O.THUPPAYIL APPUKKUTTAN, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO.420/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos. 420, 423 & 424 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants, who have suffered an order of eviction under sub section (3) of Section 11 concurrently at the hands of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, have come up in revision. The need projected by the landlords (two brothers) was that the first petitioner in the rent control petition, the first respondent herein, needs two out of the three rooms, so that he can conduct a grocery shop. The further need was that the second petitioner in the rent control petition, the 2nd respondent herein, needs to conduct a hotel in the third room and the adjacent room which is already under the possession of the landlords. 2. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioners. They contended that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section R.C.RNo.420/2011 & others 2 11. They also contended that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The learned Rent Control Court ordered a joint trial of all the three cases and conducted enquiry. In the enquiry, the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and that of RWs 1 to 5, the evidence of the commissioner as CW1, Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts.B1 series apart from Ext.C1 commission report and C1 plan submitted by the commissioner. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected by the two brothers, the respondents herein, was bona fide. It was also concluded that the rent control petition was not liable to fail by virtue of the first and second provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court passed a common order directing eviction of the revision petitioners. 3. All the revision petitioners challenged the eviction order by preferring appeals to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considered the appeals, made a reappraisal of the evidence and has passed the impugned common judgment dismissing all the appeals and confirming the order of eviction. R.C.RNo.420/2011 & others 3 4. In these revisions filed under Section 20, various grounds are raised by the revision petitioners/tenants assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.T.K.Saidalikutty learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed submissions before us based on all those grounds. Mr.Saidalikutty highlighted that the first respondent Sri.Vineesh Kumar is gainfully employed permanently in a firm at Thiruvananthapuram. The evidence, which was given by Sri.Vineesh Kumar as PW1, was that it is only a temporary employment. But, no documentary evidence was produced by him to show that it is only a temporary employment. There is every likelihood that even after getting eviction Sri.Vineesh Kumar, the first respondent, will continue to be employed. Mr.Saidalikutty also submitted that appreciation of evidence by the authorities was irregular and this has resulted in serious prejudice to the revision petitioners. The learned counsel challenged all the findings entered by the two authorities. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to all the submissions addressed before us by Mr.Saidalikutty. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as R.C.RNo.420/2011 & others 4 the order of the Rent Control Court. We should remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction under Section 20 which is revisional in nature. In this revisional jurisdiction, we are not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of arriving at conclusions of facts different from those arrived at by the two statutory authorities. In the instant case, as already indicated, the findings of fact have been entered concurrently. Having gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on fact , we are of the view that the findings therein that the need is bona fide and that the rent control petition is not liable to fail by virtue of any of the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 11 are findings founded on legal evidence available on the record. The apprehension of the learned counsel Mr.Saidalikutty expressed in the context of the first respondent can be taken care of by incorporating sufficient safeguards in this order. 6. Under the above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. However, there will be a direction that before delivery of the building is R.C.RNo.420/2011 & others 5 ordered , the Execution Court shall insist on the first respondent producing documents issued by his present employer to the effect that he has been relieved from the employment. The first respondent will also be directed to file an affidavit also stating that he is no longer employed and that he intends to personally occupy the buildings which are being vacated for accomplishment of his need. 7. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows; The revision petitions fail and will stand dismissed subject to the conditions incorporated herein above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk