IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 97 of 2010()
1. P.D.SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :23/03/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------
RCR. No. 97 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010
O R D E R
Abdul Rehim, J.
The tenant in a rent control petition on the files of the
Rent Control Court, North Parur is in revision aggrieved by
the order of eviction passed by that Court under Section
11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act,
(the Act for short), which is confirmed in appeal.
2. The allegations in the petition is that the tenant had
ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six
months without any reasonable cause and that he was not
conducting any business therein for the past more than six
months. The rent control petition was resisted mainly on
the ground that it is hit by principles of ‘res judicata’, since
an earlier petition, RCP. 25 of 2004, which was filed inter
alia under the same ground was dismissed. It was
contended that the tenant is doing business in the schedule
RCR. 97 of 2010
– 2 –
room and that he is depending on the income derived from
the business activities for livelihood.
3. Evidence before the trial court consisted of oral
testimony of PW-1 to 4 on the side of the landlord and
Exts.A1 and A2 marked on behalf of him. The tenant was
examined as RW-1 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on his
behalf. C-1 report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as
X-1 certified extract of the Meter readings of electricity in
the schedule building were also marked in evidence.
Initially the Rent Control Petition was disposed of by an
order dt. 21-6-2007. But in appeal RCA. 2/07 that order
was set aside and the matter was remanded with a direction
to pass fresh orders based on the contentions of the parties
and evidence adduced, as to whether the landlord is entitled
for an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v).
4. After the remand on an elaborate consideration of
evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that filing
of the earlier rent control petition will not run as ‘res
RCR. 97 of 2010
– 3 –
judicata’ since cessation of occupation pleaded in the
present petition is a fresh cause of action. From the
evidence adduced, especially considering the report of
Advocate Commissioner, on the factual matrix of the case,
the Rent Control Court found that the tenant had ceased to
occupy the building for the last so many months. It is also
proved through other evidence like Ext. X-1 that there was
no signs of any business being conducted in the tenanted
premises within a period of six months prior to filing of the
rent control petition.
5. The matter was taken up again in appeal in RCA. 11
of 2009 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, North
Parur. On a total reappraisal of the entire evidence the
Appellate Authority concurred with the factual findings of
the Rent Control Court and upheld the order of eviction.
6. On a scanning of the impugned order of the Rent
Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate
Authority, we find no infirmity or error warranting
RCR. 97 of 2010
– 4 –
interference. In the attenuated jurisdiction conferred on us
under section 20 of the Act, we find no merit to interfere
since there is no material illegality, irregularity or
impropriety with respect to findings arrived by the courts
below. The Appellate Authority, being the final fact finding
authority, had arrived at a conclusion on the basis of
appreciation of evidence that there is factual cessation of
occupation of the tenanted building for a period of more
than six months. The Revision Petitioner could not point out
any material omission or misappreciation of the evidence on
record warranting interference with such factual findings.
Hence we are of the opinion that the rent control
revision deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed. We
dismiss the revision petition accordingly.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
ksv/-