IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 1064 of 2002() ---------------------- RCP.69/1996 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD RCA.67/1997 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- T.T.KOMUKUTTY, S/O.AHAMMAD HAJI, THATCHA PADIKKAL THAZHATH, KUNNAMANGALAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- PREMALATHA, W/O.RANGARAJAN, ARASAMARAM STREET, COIMBATORE. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH FOR R SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9/ 6 /2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P No.1064 OF 2002 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.Mohammed Iqbal sought for time on the reason that there is a proposal for settlement. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the respondent/landlady submits that there is no proposal at all for compromise. Accordingly, we have taken up the CRP for hearing and we have heard Sri.Mohammed Iqbal as well as Sri.V.Chiambaresh. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, this court is not expected to sit in appeal over the conclusions on facts entered by the statutory authorities - rent control court and the appellate authority especially when those conclusions are founded on evidence. Under the statutory scheme the final court on facts is the rent control appellate authority. On going through the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, we find that the findings entered by the rent control appellate authority that the need projected by the present landlady that CRP.No.1064/2002 2 she need to occupy the petition schedule building for residential purpose along with her husband is bona fide is founded on evidence. It was seriously argued before us by Sri.Mohammed Iqbal that previously the mother of the present landlady had filed a petition invoking same ground and it is upon the demise of the mother, that the present RCP has been filed by the present landlady invoking the ground of own occupation for residence by herself and her husband. That may be so. But the question to be considered is whether the need projected in the present RCP is a bona fide one and whether the positive finding entered by the appellate authority in that regard, is liable to be interfered with. Certain facts are not in dispute. The present landlady and her husband are put up at Coimbatore . Of course, there is a dispute as to whether they are put up their own building or in any rented building. As against the assertion of the landlady that they are put up ina rented building, no evidence has been produced by the revision petitioner to show that landlady and her husband are put up in Coimbatore in their own building. Therefore, case of the landlady that she and her husband are put in a rented building in Coimbatore has to be accepted. When a landlady, CRP.No.1064/2002 3 who belongs to Palakkad and is put up presently in rented building in Coimbatore expressed desire and intention to come back to her home town so that she could stay in her own building, the said need has to be accepted prima facie as a genuine and bona fide one. In the absence of any oblique motive or any vitiating circumstance, the need will have to be accepted by the authorities to be bona fide one. 2. We do not find any oblique motive or any vitiating circumstance, which militates against the genuineness of the need. The appellate authority, which is the final court on facts, was impressed by the oral evidence given by the landlady. It came out in evidence that the landlady's husband is having a small time job in Coimbatore which is not sufficient for sustaining him and his family. It also became evident that the landlady's husband has been successful in taking a small shop room on lease in Palakkad. The evidence shows that the landlady and her husband intends to reside in the petition schedule building and the landlady's husband intends to carry on business in the room which is taken on lease. 3. Thus, according to us also, the evidence in the case will CRP.No.1064/2002 4 justify the finding that the need projected by the landlady for own occupation is a bona fide one. Being a residential building, the revision petitioner, tenant cannot claim protection of the second provisio to sub section 3 of Section 11. On going through the judgment of the rent control authorities, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting correction under revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk CRP.No.1064/2002 5 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P No.1064 OF 2002 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 9TH JUNE 2009