IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 118 of 2010()
1. MAROLLI KRISHNAN, S/O.KANARAKUTTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.T.YUSUF, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN HAJI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
For Respondent :SRI.R.SUDHISH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :30/06/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The tenant is in revision. The landlord
sought to evict him on the ground of arrears of
rent and on the ground of bona fide need for own
occupation under Section 11(3). It is conceded by
both sides that in this revision we need be
concerned only with the order of eviction
concurrently passed against the revision petitioner
on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11.
The need projected by the landlord was that the
landlord is presently conducting business in a
building belonging to the landlord’s brother one
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -2-
Sri.P.T.Mohammed and that Sri.P.T.Mohammed
has requested the landlord to vacate the
premises. The landlord does not have any other
building owned by him in his possession than the
petition schedule building and hence the landlord
is in need of the petition schedule building. Bona
fides of the claim was disputed by the revision
petitioner who contended that the real motive
behind instituting the RCP is to extract higher
rent. It was also contended that the RCP was
liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub
Section 3 of Section 11 since the landlord was
having possession of four other rooms having
Door Nos.T.P.10/398, 10/399, 10/400 and 9/562.
It was further contended that at any rate, the
tenant was entitled to the protection of the second
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -3-
proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent
Control Court enquired into the RCP and at trial
the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of the
landlord as PW1 and that of the tenant as RW1.
The documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to
A5, B1 to B3 apart from Ext.C1 Commissioner’s
Report and Ext.C2 Commissioner’s Plan. The
learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the
evidence came to the conclusion that the oral
evidence of PW1 was inspiring and would hold that
the need was bona fide. As regards the first
proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 that court
found that the tenant was unsuccessful in
adducing any evidence to show that the landlord
was in possession of any of the four rooms.
Coming to the question whether the tenant is
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -4-
entitled to the protection of the second proviso it
was held that since the tenant’s evidence was that
he is getting Rs.200/- per mensem from the
tailoring work carried on by him in the petition
schedule building. It was apparent that the
landlord was depending on other sources also
including the salary of his son who was a
Government employee. Taking that view of the
matter it was held that the first limb of the second
proviso was not satisfied. On the basis of that
finding it was held that the tenant is not entitled
to the protection of the second proviso at all.
2. The Appellate Authority considered the
appeal preferred by the revision petitioner,
reappraised the evidence and concurred with all
the conclusions of the Rent Control Court.
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -5-
Accordingly, order of eviction was confirmed and
RCA was dismissed.
3. In this revision under Section 20 various
grounds have been raised challenging the
judgment of the Appellate Authority.
Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner addressed strenuous and
persuasive arguments before us on the basis of all
those grounds. All the submissions of
Sri.Madhavanunni were resisted by Advocate
Sri.R.Sudhish for the respondent/landlord.
Sri.Madhavanunni submitted that the revision
petitioner is prepared to offer very attractive hike
in the rent which is presently paid by him. But
Sri.Sudhish submitted that since the need is an
extremely bona fide one, the landlord is not
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -6-
willing to allow the tenant to continue as a tenant
in the building even if an attractive rent is offered.
Sri.Madhavanunni would then request for grant of
one year’s time. This request is also opposed by
Sri.Sudhish.
4. We have very anxiously considered the
rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have
scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority
as well as the order of the Rent Control Court
which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Under the scheme of the Rent Control Act, the
final fact finding court is the Rent Control
Appellate Authority. When the findings entered by
the Appellate Authority are reasonable and are
founded on evidence this Court will not be
justified in interfering with those finding within the
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -7-
contours of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section
20. Having scanned the judgment of the Appellate
Authority, we find that the finding entered therein
confirming similar finding entered by the Rent
Control Court that the need is bona fide is founded
on very convincing oral evidence given by PW1.
5. The same is the position regarding the
finding that the RCP is not liable to fail by virtue of
the first proviso. Though the tenant contended
that the landlord was having vacant possession of
as many as four rooms he was unsuccessful in
adducing any evidence to show that the landlord
was having possession of at least room No.9/562
which was admitted by the landlord to be owned
by him. Though a commission was taken out, the
Commissioner was never taken to room No.9/562
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -8-
at all. We do not find any infirmity about the
finding of the Appellate Authority that the tenant
is not entitled to the protection of the second
proviso. The finding that the revision petitioner is
getting Rs.200/- per mensem from the tailoring
work carried on by him in the petition schedule
building and the landlord was depending on other
sources also including the salary of his son who is
a Government employee is a reasonable finding.
We do not find any warrant for interference.
6. The result of the RCR is therefore, as
follows:-
The RCR has to fail and will stand dismissed.
However, we feel that notwithstanding opposition
of Sri.Sudhish, the revision petitioner can be
granted time till 31/01/11 to surrender the
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -9-
premises subject to certain conditions. Hence,
even as we dismiss the RCR without any order as
to costs we direct the execution court not to order
and effect delivery of the building in question till
31/01/11 subject to the following conditions:-
1) The revision petitioner shall file an
affidavit containing an undertaking to the effect
before the execution court or the Rent Control
Court, as the case may be, within ten days from
today that he will give peaceful surrender of the
building in question to the respondent on or
before 31/01/11. It shall also be undertaken
through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if
any will be discharged within one month and that
occupational charges at the current rent rate will
also be paid without fail till he surrenders the
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -10-
building. We make it clear that unless the affidavit
as ordered above is filed on time, the revision
petitioner will not get the benefit of time granted
as above.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-