IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 36 of 2006(C) ----------------------------- RCA.121/1998 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY RCP.21/1993 of RENT CONTROL COURT/MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 TO 9/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 TO 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.KRISHNA SAI PRASAD, S/O.LATE K.GOPALAN VYDIAR, JAYALAKSHMI STORES, NEAR BUS STAND, T.C.ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT.M.NANI, W/O.LATE K.GOPALAN VYDIAR, RESIDING AT SRI SAI NILAYAM, PANUNDA, P.O.PACHAPOYKA, THALASSERY TALUK. 3. SMT.M.JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.DR.P.V.LAKSHMANAN RESIDING AT PALERI KUNNATH HOUSE, ATTADAPPA, P.O.KAPPAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SMT.M.VANAJA KUMARI, W/O.M.K.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MANNAMBATH HOUSE, ADOOR, P.O.KADACHIRA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT.BABY SUSHAMA, W/O.P.ALAN, RESIDING AT CHIMMINIAN VALAVU, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. SMT.M.SHAILAJA, W/O.M.RAVINDRAN, RETNA VILAS, P.O.MOWENCHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. SMT.M.M.BABY, D/O.GOPALAN VYDIAR, RESIDING AT SAI NILAYAM, PANUNDA, P.O.PACHAPOYKA, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) RCR.36/06 -2- RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS 1 T 6 AND RESPONDENTS 10 & 11: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.P.KADEESU, W/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY HAJI, RESIDING AT V.P.HOUSE, NEAR KUTHUPARAMBA GOVERN- MENT HOSPITAL, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. V.P.ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.LATE MAMOOTTY HAJI RESIDING AT 15/3, L.B.ROAD, ADYAR, MADRAS-600 020. 3. V.P.NOUSHAD, S/O.LATE MAMMOOTTY HAJI, RESIDING AT DO. DO. DO. 4. V. P. ZIYAD, S/O LATE MAMMOOTTY HAJI, RESIDING AT V.P. HOUSE, NEAR KUTHUPARAMBA - GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. V.P. SHAMEEH, S/O LATE MAMMOOTTY HAJI, R/A DO. DO. 6. V.P. SHIHAM, S/O LATE MAMMOOTTY HAJI, R/A DO. DO. 7. SMT. M. K. JOSI, W/O K. ARAVIND, R/A KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, VILLIAPALLY, VADAKARA DISTRICT. 8. KUMMAKAROTH CHATHUKUTTY, S/O KUNHIONAKKAN, R/A ERUVATTY AMSOM, PANUNDA DESOM, P.O. PACHAPOYKA, THALASSERY TALUK. 9. MAROLI ANANDAN, S/O AMBU, R/A SHEEBA NIVAS, PANUNDA, P.O. PACHAPOYKA, THALASSERY TALUK. 10.BINDU, W/O SANAL KUMAR, R/A PRABHA, P.O. MANANTHERI KAIDERI, KUTHUPARAMPA, THALASSERY. RCR.36/06 -3- 11.RESMI, D/O LATE PRASANAKUMARI, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2&3 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/11 ALONG WITH RCR NO.69 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. Nos.36 & 69 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J RCR No.36/06 is preferred by the tenants and RCR No.69/06 is preferred by the landlords. The landlords sought to evict the tenants on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation and the ground under Section 11(4)(iii). The statutory authorities have concurrently declined order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii). The landlords in their revision challenge the decision of the statutory authorities to decline eviction order on the ground under Section 11(4)(iii). The tenants challenge the order of eviction passed against them under Section 11(3). The Rent Control Court in the first instance declined eviction order under Section 11(3) also. The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment ordered eviction under Section 11(3). 2. Today when the revisions came up for hearing it was R. C. R. Nos.36 & 69 of 2006 -2- submitted by Sri.P.C.Chacko, the learned counsel for the tenants that he has already given up the engagement given to him by the tenants and that the case bundle has been handed over with instruction to be given to another counsel. Nobody appears on behalf of the tenants. We have heard submissions of Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in RCR No.69/06. Even though Sri.Krishnanunni addressed strenuously, we are not persuaded to hold that the decision concurrently taken by the statutory authorities to eviction order on the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) is illegal, irregular, or improper. The above decision will stand confirmed. 3. Coming to the order of eviction passed for the first time by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11 (3), we are of the view that the learned Appellate Authority has taken the decision to order eviction on a correct appreciation of the evidence keeping in mind the law which is applicable and eschewing irrelevant considerations which weighed with the R. C. R. Nos.36 & 69 of 2006 -3- learned Rent Control Court. Under the statutory scheme, the final court on facts is the Rent Control Appellate Authority. As the finding entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the context of ground under Section 11(3) are reasonable findings founded on evidence, we do not find way to interfere with such findings. In short, we do not find any infirmity about the order of eviction passed for the first time by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under sub Section 3 of Section 11. 4. The result of the above discussion is that both these RCRs will stand dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- R. C. R. Nos.36 & 69 of 2006 -4-