IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 RCRev..No. 64 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.112/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , KOZHIKODE RCP.60/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.K.MUHAMMED IQUBAL, S/O.SAIDUTTY, AGED 52, CITY GOLD, KAMMATHI LANE, PALAYAM ROAD, CALICUT NAGARAM, AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. T.K.KUNHAYIN, S/O.SAODITTU, AGED 49, DOOR NO.10/438, STATIONARY BUSINESS, PARAMBIL BAZAR IN KARUVATTUR AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- MELEKUNNUMMAL ISMAIL, S/O.KUNHAMUTTY, AGED 37, MELEKUNNUMAL HOUSE, PARTAMBIL P.O., MARIKKUNNU VIA., CALICUT-12, IN KARUVATTUR AMSOM AND PARAMBIL DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK AND KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.64 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant and the alleged sub tenant are the revision petitioners. They challenge in this revision under Section 20 the order of eviction concurrently passed against them by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation and sub letting. The landlord's case in the context of claim under sub section (3) of Section 11 was that the landlord has no independent job or avocation and that he is presently working under his brother Mr. Ali and that the remuneration that he draws from that employment is only Rs.2000/- which is quite inadequate for sustenance of the landlord and his family. The tenants disputed this claim and contended that the landlord is doing real estate business as well as business in vegetables. The tenant also claimed protection of the second proviso to sub section(3) of Section 11. 2. The allegation of the landlord in the context of ground RCR.No.64/2010 2 under section 11(4)(i) was that the tenant has parted with possession of the portion of the building in favour of the alleged sub tenant. The tenant's defence to this allegation was that the jural relationship between the tenant and the alleged sub tenant was not that of tenant and sub tenant but that of tenant and assistant. Before the Rent Control Court the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the landlord apart from the oral evidence of the landlord as PW1. The solitary item of evidence on the side of the tenant consisted of the tenant's oral evidence as RW1. Significantly the alleged sub tenant did not mount the box for proving the jural relationship between him and RW1. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord was a bona fide one and that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Similarly, it was concluded by that court that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that the jural relationship between him and the sub tenant was that of employer and employee. It was also found that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. On the basis of these RCR.No.64/2010 3 conclusions, the order of eviction was passed against the tenant on the ground of sub section (3) of Section and clause (i) of sub section (4) of section 11 of the Act. 3. The tenant and the alleged sub tenant filed appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. That authority reappraised the evidence throughly and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised challenging the findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. Sri.E.Narayanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed us on the basis of those grounds. The learned counsel took us through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. According to him, the evidence adduced by the landlord was not sufficient to prove the bona fides of the need projected. He argued that in a case where the landlord alleges that he is working under his brother in a hotel and that allegation is disputed by the tenant, it is obligatory on the part of the landlord to have examined the brother who is the owner of the hotel. That was not done. Hence adverse inferences RCR.No.64/2010 4 should have been drawn against the landlord. He submitted that the findings of the authorities regarding the existence of eviction grounds are contrary to the evidence available on record. As his last plea, the learned counsel requested that at least one year's time be granted to the petitioners to surrender the premises. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed before us by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. Under the statutory scheme, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the final court on facts. We notice that the findings entered by that authority confirming the similar findings entered by the Rent Control Court are all founded on evidence. We do not find any irregularity, irregularity or impropriety with those findings as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. The revision necessarily has to fail. However, considering the last request of the learned counsel Sri.E.Narayaan, we are inclined to grant to the revision petitioners time till 31/10/2010 subject to certain conditions. RCR.No.64/2010 5 5. The result of the above discussion is as follows; i). The RCR is dismissed. ii) The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 31/10/2010 subject to the following conditions; Both the revision petitioners shall file affidavits before the Execution Court within 10 days from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent on or before 31/10/2010. It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of Rent, if any will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid to the respondent as and when the same falls due till such time as the building is surrendered. RCR.No.64/2010 6 We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk