IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 22 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.6/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR CP.5/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER. ---------------------------------------- SASI, S/O.SUBRAMANINAN, VARISERIL, KUZHUPPILLY, PARUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER. ------------------------------------------------ ANNIE, W/O.VARGHESE, MALIYEKKAL, KUZHUPILLY, PARUR TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.22 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act are orders of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority on the ground under Section 11 (3) of the Act 2 of 1965. The case of the respondent landlady to begin with was that the petition schedule building, which is the subject matter of this case and the buildings which are subject matter of three other cases, which were jointly tried, are required so that her husband who is a Doctor (PW1) and her son who is also a Doctor (PW2), can together conduct a hospital in those buildings. During the pendency of the proceedings, PW1- landlady's husband passed away. The rent control court and the appellate authority would hold that the demise of PW1 was not a subsequent event capable of frustrating the projected need of the landlady. The above view of the rent control court and the R.C.R. 22/2009 2 appellate authority was practically approved by this court in C.R.P. No.1957/2001 and the connected cases. During the pendency of those CRPs, affidavits were filed by the various tenants to the effect that the landlady's son is permanently employed in Bulgaria for the last more than seven years and that he was very comfortably placed there. This court noticed some merit prima facie in the contention of the tenants that if, as a matter of fact, the landlady's son (PW2) secured permanent employment in Burgaria that may have some bearing upon the bona fides of the claim. Accordingly, all the cases were remanded to the rent control court for considering whether the landlord's need of accommodating her son in the buildings for the purpose of conducting the hospital survives. After remand, the landlady, mounted the box and testified as PW3 that PW2 her only son will come back to join her and start hospital in the petition schedule building once she succeeds in getting back possession of the building. She would state, in contrast to the allegation of the tenant, that her son was working temporarily at the moment in Saudi Arabia. Though the landlady (PW3) was cross examined, it was not agreed by her that the employment R.C.R. 22/2009 3 which PW2 had acquired in Saudi Arabia is a permanent one. At any rate, no documentary materials are produced on the side of the tenant to show that PW2 has secured permanent employment in any foreign country. Evidence of PW3 landlady that her son will come back to his home village on getting possession of the building inspired the rent control court as well as the appellate authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court of facts. 2. Before us Sri.B.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Variety Emporium v. V.R.M.Mohd. Ibrahim Naina (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 207). The learned counsel would submit that the facts situation, which obtained in that case, is comparable to the situation in the present case. According to the learned counsel, the circumstances that the landlady has already secured possession of three out of the four rooms which were subject of CRP No.1957/2001 & connected cases and that the landlady's son has not so far come back to start the hospital in the three rooms possession of which was already obtained, are subsequent events which would demolish the bona fides of the R.C.R. 22/2009 4 need projected by the landlady. He would also submit that in order to accomplish the projected need, it is not necessary that the petition schedule room in which the petitioner is conducting a tea shop is also obtained. That tea shop can cater to the patients, staff and the visitors in the hospital and will not be a hindrance to the conduct of hospital by PW2. 3. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.variety's Emporium case (supra). We are unable to agree that the facts therein are comparable to the present case. The need projected by the landlady in M/s.Variety's Emporum case was the need to conduct a retail textile shop. The Supreme Court noticed that the area occupied by the room which was subject matter of that case, was in comparison to the area occupied by the three rooms possession of which had already been obtained by the landlord was negligible. The Supreme Court thought that in the nature of the need, which was only to conduct a retail textile shop, it could have been accomplished by the landlord in that case by utilising the three rooms possession of which was obtained. The situation in the present case is different. The need projected by the landlady all along is R.C.R. 22/2009 5 to conduct a full fledged hospital. We gather that the building which was subject matter of C.R.P. No.1957/2001 & connected cases and the present RCP are situated at the Kuzhupilly Bus stop on the Vypeen - Munambam main road. The proposal is to construct a full fledged hospital. To allow the petitioner's building alone to remain in the present fashion with the petitioner conducting tea shop therein will not at any rate be a conducive to the conduct of the hospital which is proposed to be constructed by the landlady. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court is distinguishable of facts from this case. 4. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not sit in appeal over the judgments of the statutory authorities. Under the statutory scheme, the rent control appellate authority is the final court of facts. That authority has, on re appreciation of the entire evidence in this case, which consisted of testimony of PW1, PW2 (the doctor son) and PW3 the landlady and the testimony of RW1 himself concluded that the landlady's version that her only son who is presently employed in the Saudi Arabia will come back to the home village Kuzhupilly on getting R.C.R. 22/2009 6 possession of the petition schedule also is true. Significantly, the rooms which were subject matter of the C.R.P. Nos.1957/2001 & connected cases are kept vacant by the landlady. Sri.Ramachandran would voice an apprehension that the landlady may demolish the schedule building as well as the buildings which were subject matter of those three CRPs and may even dispose of the same thus frustrating the statutory right of re induction guaranteed to the evicted tenant under Section 11 (12). We are of the view that sufficient safeguards can be incorporated in the judgment in anticipation of such a contingency which according to us is very unlikely to arise. 5. Having carefully gone through the orders passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority, we are of the view that the findings entered therein are founded on evidence and are reasonable. Bona fide need means nothing beyond a reasonable requirement. The only son of the landlady is a doctor and the son also swears that the schedule building will be utilised along with the buildings which are subject matter of the three CRPs which were jointly tried, for the conduct of a hospital. The need should be assumed to be bona fide and it is R.C.R. 22/2009 7 for the tenant to show that the petition is actuated by mala fides. Having regard to the well defined contours of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any warrant for interfering with the orders passed by the rent control court and appellate authority. We confirm those orders. In view of the apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we are issuing certain directions as stated below. i). The respondent landlady is restrained from disposing of the buildings, which were subject matter of RCP Nos. 5/1996. 6/1996, 7/1996 and 8/1996) for a period of two years from obtaining possession of the petition schedule buildings in the present case. ii). The landlady is also directed to effect suitable alteration to the buildings which are subject matter of CRP No.1957/2001 and connected cases so that they are made suitable for conduct of a R.C.R. 22/2009 8 hospital within a period of four months of obtaining possession of the petition schedule building. iii). If it is seen that direction No.(ii) above has not been complied with by the landlady, it is open to the revision petitioner to apply to the rent control court under Section 11 (12) and that court will pass appropriate orders on that application with notice to the landlady so that the statutory rights guaranteed to the revision petitioner becomes effective and meaningful. iv). The execution court is directed to adjourn the execution petition to 6/8/2009 provided the revision petitioner files an affidavit undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises to the landlady on or before 5/8/2009 and undertakes further to discharge the arrears of rent, if any, and to pay the rent which R.C.R. 22/2009 9 falls due subsequently till the date of his actual surrender. v). The affidavit, as directed above, shall be filed within two weeks from today and the execution petition need be adjourned only after the affidavit is noticed by the execution court. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk