IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 277 of 2010()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MURUGAN R.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA,FOR CAVEATOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 277 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act
2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority
confirming the eviction order passed against the revision
petitioner on the ground of additional accommodation under sub
section (8) of Section 11. In this revision various grounds have
been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and
Sri.Rajan P.Kaliyath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner,
addressed us on the basis of all those grounds. Our attention
was drawn to Ext.B1 letter under which the landlord has agreed
for renewal of the lease in 2006 on condition that the tenant pays
a higher rent. According to the learned counsel, if as a matter
of fact, the need for additional accommodation was genuine, the
landlord would not have agreed for renewal. The intention of the
landlord is only to compel the tenant to pay still higher rent.
2. The submissions of Sri.Rajan P.Kaliyath were opposed by
RCR.No.277/2010 2
Sri.R.S.Kalkura, who has lodged a caveat on behalf of the
respondent landlord.
3. We have considered the submissions. We have gone
through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the
order of the Rent Control Court, which was confirmed by the
Appellate Authority. Even though the submissions of Sri.Rajan
P.Kaliyath cannot be said to be totally unattractive, in view of the
settled position that just because the landlord sought for
enhancement of rent, the need projected by him later under sub
section (3) of Section 11 or sub section (8) of Section 11 cannot
be branded as not bona fide, it is difficult to accept the
submission that Ext.B1 is indicative of absence of bona fides.
Moreover, having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under
Section 20, our enquiry is whether the judgment of the Appellate
Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on
facts, is vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety as
contemplated under Section 20. When that question is asked,
we become oblige to answer the same in the negative. The
revision necessarily has to fail.
4. As a last plea, Sri.Rajan P.Kaliyath, requested that a
RCR.No.277/2010 3
reasonable time be granted to the revision petitioner to
surrender the premises. Considering the above request, even as
we dismiss the RCR confirming the order of eviction, we are
inclined to direct the Execution Court not to order and effect
delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/12/2010. We
order accordingly.
The R.C.R. is dismissed subject to above observations and
directions.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
dpk