IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 259 of 2010()
1. K.P.V.SELVARAJ
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MADHAVAN PILLAI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :19/08/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 259 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under
Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the
revision petitioner on the ground of cessation of occupation under
Section 11 (4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. The allegation of the landlord
was that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously
for more than two years preceding the date of the Rent Control
Petition. The tenant’s defence was that he was laid up and
therefore, he would not conduct business. The evidence in the
case consisted of Exts.A1 rent chit, Ext. C1 commission report,
oral evidence of witnesses PWs 1 & 2 and CPW1 who was none
other than the tenant. The Rent Control Court found that the
tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that his cessation of
occupation of the building was due to reasons stated in his
counter. That Court ordered eviction.
RCR.No. 259/2010 2
2. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and
concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the order of eviction.
3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are
raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority and Sri. R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, addressed arguments before us on the basis of those
grounds. When Mr.Kalkura’s attention was drawn to the
reasonableness of the finding concurrently entered by the
statutory authorities that the tenant has ceased to occupy the
building continuously for about two years, Mr.Kalkura said that
during the pendency of the RCP the tenant has recommenced his
business and the business, which is carried on in the petition
schedule building, accounts for the only source of livelihood for
the tenant.
4. We have considered the submissions of Sri.Kalkura. We
have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority also. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act of 1965 vitiating
RCR.No. 259/2010 3
the findings entered concurrently by the statutory authorities.
We do not find any warrant for interference. Ordinarily we
would not have been inclined to grant much time to the tenant
who is being evicted on the ground of cessation of occupation.
However, in view of the fervent appeal of Mr.Kalkura that at
least one year’s time be granted to the revision petitioner for
surrendering the premises as he has restarted his business, we
feel that the question of granting time can be considered with
notice to the respondent landlord.
The result of the above discussions is that RCR is
dismissed in limine.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk