IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 408 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.1/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KOTTAYAM RCP.4/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4227 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT P.B.NO.184-THRISSUR-680001,REP.BY IS SECRETARY, VARGHESE,S/O.THOMAS. 2. THE PRESIDENT,COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4227 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT P.B.NO.184 THRISSUR-680001. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ GEORGE SEBASTIAN,AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE DEVASSIA,RESIDING AT PAIKATTU HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE,NEAR POLICE STATION, PIN-686673. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 461 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ RCR NOs. 408 & 461 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. R.C.R. No. 408/2011 is filed by the tenants and RCR No. 461/2011 is filed by the landlord. 2. The landlord sought to evict the tenants on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 and also under clause (iii) of sub section (4) of Section 11. 3. The need projected by the landlord under sub section (3) of Section 11 was that the landlord needs the petition schedule premises, which is the ground floor portion of a double storied building belonging to the landlord and situated very close to the KSRTC bus stand at Changanachery where the tenants are conducting Indian Coffee House, for the purpose of converting the same as parking area, stair case area and also for the use as a restaurant as part of the hotel which the landlord proposes to start in the first floor of the above double storied building. The landlord's allegation in the context of the ground under Section RCR Nos.408 & 461 /2011 2 11 (4)(iii) was that the tenants have come to possess another building at a distance of 300 meters from the petition schedule building and that the said building is reasonably sufficient for the tenants' requirement of conducting Indian Coffee House. 4. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenants, who claim the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. As regards the ground under Section 11 (4) (iii), it was contended that the subsequently acquired building was so acquired when the petition schedule premises was found insufficient for meeting the requirements of the tenants. Hence, the contention was that the subsequently acquired building is not reasonably sufficient for the tenants' requirement in the Municipal Town. The Rent Control Court conducted enquiry and in the enquiry the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Ext.B1, Exts C1 and C2 commission reports and PWs 1 to 4 and RWs 1 and 2. On evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that both the grounds of eviction invoked by the landlord stood established. It was also found that the tenants are not entitled to claim the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 RCR Nos.408 & 461 /2011 3 as they are a society and hence not a natural person. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) (iii). 5. The tenants preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority as RCA No. 1/2010. The learned Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the entire case and has passed the impugned judgment by which the appeal was allowed in part and the order of eviction, which was granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (4)(iii), was vacated. 6. In the revision filed by the landlord, he challenges the appellate authority's judgment to the extent the same vacates the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (4)(iii). In the revision preferred by the tenants, they challenge the order of eviction passed concurrently passed by the two authorities under Section 11 (3). 7. Sri. V.Rajendran learned counsel for the revision petitioners in R.C.R. No. 408/2011 and Sri. Mathew John learned counsel for the revision petitioner in R.C.R. No.461/2011 addressed very strenuous and persuasive submissions before us based on the grounds raised in the respective memoranda of RCR Nos.408 & 461 /2011 4 revisions filed by the tenants as well as the landlord. We were taken by the learned counsel through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. According to Mr.Rajendran, concurrent though the same be, the finding entered by the two authorities under sub section (3) of Section 11 that the need is bona fide is illegal , irregular and improper. It is an unusual and unreal ground which is projected. 8. Mr.Mathew John, per contra, would submit that the learned Appellate Authority was not justified in vacating the order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (4)(iii). The very legislative intendment underlying Section 11 (4)(iii) is that at a time when there is acute accommodation shortage, the tenant should not be allowed to luxury of having more buildings than what are necessary for their requirements. 9. We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We remind ourselves of the limits of our jurisdiction under Section 20. Having considered the RCR Nos.408 & 461 /2011 5 submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the findings concurrently entered by the two statutory authorities that the need projected by the landlord under sub section (3) of Section 11 is a bona fide one and that the tenants are not entitled for the protection of the second proviso are reasonable findings founded on evidence on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory final facts findings authority i.e. the Rent Control Appellate Authority, this court is not expected to upset those findings by venturing upon a reappraisal of the same. We do not find any illegality,irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3). 10. The same is the position as regards the judgment of the Appellate Authority given in the context of the eviction ground under Section 11 (4)(iii). True, the legislative intendment underlying Section 11 (4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965 is that at a time when there is acute accommodation shortage, the tenants should not be allowed the luxury of having more buildings than necessary at the tenant's disposal. The question, RCR Nos.408 & 461 /2011 6 which arose under the rent control petition under Section 11 (4) (iii), is whether the acquisition of the building in Salim Complex situated at a distance of 300 meters from the petition schedule building will result in the tenant's entailing liability to be evicted under Section 11 (4)(iii). According to us, the finding of the Appellate Authority that acquisition of the building at Salim Complex is not an event which fastens the tenants with liability to be evicted in terms of Section 11 (4) (iii) is a correct finding having regard to the statutory provisions as well as the law as settled by the judicial precedents. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority warranting interference in revision. 11. After we made our decision known, Mr. Rajendran learned counsel for the revision petitioners in RCR No. 408/2011, requests for grant of at least one year's time to surrender the petition schedule building. This request was very stiffly opposed by Mr. Mathew John learned counsel for the landlord. Mr.Mathew John submitted that, if for any reason this court is inclined to grant some more time to the tenants for surrendering the premises, the same may be made on condition RCR Nos.408 & 461 /2011 7 that the rent currently being paid by the tenants is enhanced . According to Mr.Mathew John, the current rent of Rs.22,500/- per month is far below the fair rent which the building may fetch if the same is let out today. 12. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar in the context of duration of time to be given to the tenants for surrendering the premises, we feel that the tenants can be granted time till 31/12/2012 subject to the condition that with effect from 1/1/2012 the tenants pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.27,500/- per month. 13. The result of the above discussion is as follows; i). Both the revision petitions will fail and the judgment of the Appellate Authority will stand confirmed. ii). The Execution Court is directed to defer delivery of the building till 31/12/2012 subject to the following conditions; The 2nd revision petitioner in RCR No. 408/2011 will file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be on or before 5/1/2012 undertaking that peaceful surrender of the building will be given to the landlord on or before 31/12/2012 and undertaking further that the revision RCR Nos.408 & 461 /2011 8 petitioners will pay occupational charges to the landlord for the building in question at the rate of Rs.27,500/- per month with effect from 1/1/2012. We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of time allowed as above, only if they file affidavit on time and honour the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk RCR Nos.408 & 461 /2011 9