IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 425 of 2005()
1. THEKKE THAYYALLATHIL ABDULLA HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHANDRAN, KULANGARA VEETTIL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON
For Respondent :SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :24/02/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.C.R.No.425 OF 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009
ORDER
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
Strenuous and persuasive submissions of Sri.Saneesh Kumar,
learned counsel for the revision petitioner notwithstanding, we are
unable to find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity tainting the orders
concurrently passed by the rent control court and the appellate
authority declining eviction on the ground under Section 11(3). As
rightly noticed by the rent control court and the appellate authority, the
pleaded case was that PW1- the landlord needs the building for
occupation by PW2, the son- defacto claimant and that the studies of
PW2, the son had come to an end and that he was going about in search
of an avocation. As noticed by the authorities below, the father’s
evidence was to the effect that the son was doing his first year degree
while the son would swear that he never joined for degree course in
the college. When bonafides of a claim and need under Section 11(2)
is sought to be established by adduction of oral evidence, it is the
RCR.NO.425/05 2
credibility of the witnesses which matters. The rent control court
which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses- father and the son
and record their testimonies felt that PW2 the defacto claimant was
examined in the teeth of the truth that was spoken to by PW1. The
appellate authority on a re-appreciation of the evidence also concured
with the rent control court.
We do not find any warrant for interference under Section 20 of
Act 2 of 1965. We confirm the orders passed by the rent control court
and the appellate authority and dismiss the revision petition. But we
make it clear that those orders and our judgment confirming them will
not stand in the way of the petitioner/landlord from filing application
for eviction on the ground under Section 11(3) or any other available
ground on the basis of the circumstances which obtain now. In other
words, the bar of Section 15 will not prevent the petitioner/landlord
from filing fresh rent control petition. We are informed that the order
of eviction passed by the rent control appellate authority has now been
got vacated by making requisite deposits and filing necessary
application under Section 11(2)(c). But the learned counsel for the
RCR.NO.425/05 3
revision petitioner complains that the respondent/tenant had not
discharged the rent which fell due subsequent to the filing of the rent
control appeal. Considering the above submission of the learned
counsel, even as we dismiss the revision petition, we direct the
respondent to pay the entire rent which fell due in respect of the
petition schedule building after the institution of the rent control appeal
less any amount already paid to the revision petitioner either directly or
through his counsel in this court within one month from today.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
sv.
RCR.NO.425/05 4