IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 RCRev..No. 260 of 2010() ------------------------ (ORDER OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY THALASSERY IN RCA NO.60/2007 & RENT CONTROLLER(ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF) KANNUR IN RCP 100/2006) REV.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- M/S.GIVE AND TAKE COMPANY, CAMP BAZAR, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.ALAKALAKATH ABDUL NAZAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ------------------------------------ MUKKANNAN MUMTAZ, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 34 YEARS,VALAPATTANAM AMSOM DESOM, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, CHITTALIKKAL ABDUL RAHIMAN,S/O.HAMEED HAJI,AGED 41 YEARS, MARIYAM MANZIL, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 260 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the RCP to the Rent Control Court giving opportunity to the landlady to adduce oral evidence in support of her claim for bona fide need for own occupation. The landlady sought to evict the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation and also the ground under Section 11 (4)(iii). The ground of arrears of rent and the ground under Section 11 (4)(iii) were declined by the Rent Control Court and the decision declining eviction on those two grounds has become final. The need projected by the landlady under sub section (3) of Section 11 was that she needs the petition schedule building for conducting garment business. Before the Rent Control Court the landlady's husband was examined as PW1. The Rent Control Court took the view that since bona fides is a state of mind of R.C.R.No.260/2010 2 the landlady, she and she alone is the person competent to testify regarding the bona fides of the need. In that view of the matter, the Rent Control Court found that the landlady was unsuccessful in establishing that the need projected by her was bona fide. The eviction sought for under Section 11 (3) was accordingly declined. 2. The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment has set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and remanded the Rent Control Petition to the Rent Control Court permitting the landlady to get herself examined. 3. In this revision various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the order of remand cannot be passed by way of luxury. According to him, the Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have enquired whether there was any definite reason for the landlady in not examining herself as a witness on her side before the Rent Control Court. Such enquiry was not conducted by the Rent Control Court. For mere asking, opportunity is now granted by the Rent Control Appellate R.C.R.No.260/2010 3 Authority to the landlady for adducing oral evidence. The Rent Control Control Appellate Authority has virtually found that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide. Therefore the order of remand presently passed is a mere formality. 3. We have anxiously considered the submissions of Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. The persuasive submissions of Mr.Mustaque notwithstanding, we do not think that the judgment of the Appellate Authority suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. It is not correct to say that the Appellate Authority has entered a specific finding that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide. In fact,what the Appellate Authority has ordered is only to reconsider the question whether the need is bona fide by allowing examination of the landlady also. Of course, there is some merit in the submission of Mr.Mustaque that some of the observations of the learned Appellate Authority in para 14 of the impugned judgment will indicate that the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that the R.C.R.No.260/2010 4 need projected is bona fide. According to us, it will suffice if we ensure that those observations do not cause any prejudice to the tenant/revision petitioner while the Rent Control Court takes fresh decision pursuant to the impugned judgment. The result of the above discussion is that the Revision Petition fails and will stand dismissed. The Rent Control Court is directed not to be influenced by any of the observations contained in the judgment of the Appellate Authority to the effect that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide. The question whether the need is bona fide or not will be decided by the Rent Control Court on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which comes to be on record pursuant to the remand. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk