IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 306 of 2010()
1. SASIDHARAN,S/O.KARUNAKARAN,RESIDING AT
... Petitioner
2. RAVEENDRAN,S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
Vs
1. NARAYANA PILLAI(DIED),S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI
... Respondent
2. THANKAMMA,D/O.KOCHUKUNJAMMA,
3. SUDARSANA PILLAI,DO.
4. BABU PILLAI,DO.
5. SURESH,DO.
6. RAJESH NARAYANAN,DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :14/10/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 306 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant and the
alleged sub tenant, who are brothers, is the judgment of the Rent
Control Appellate Authority, Kollam, confirming the order of
eviction, which was passed against them, on grounds under sub
section (3) of Section 11 and also clause (i) of sub section (4) of
Section 11. The need projected by the original landlord under
section 11(3) is that the building is needed bona fide for the
occupation of one Sudharsanan Pillai, his son, for the purpose of
conducting glass and ply wood business. The allegation of the
landlord in the context of the ground of sub letting was that the
first respondent is the tenant having taken the building on the
basis of the rent chit executed by him in favour of the landlord
and the 2nd respondent is an unauthroised transferee/sub lessee.
2. The tenant’s defence to the ground under Section 11(3)
was that the need is not bona fide, that the landlord has five
RCR.No.306/2010 2
other rooms, which are identical, and that if the need is bonafide,
the landlord could have accommodated his son in any of the
other rooms. The tenant also claimed protection of the second
proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The tenant’s defence to
the ground of sub lease was that the original tenant was their
father and that upon demise of the father, both the respondents
have become tenants and hence there is no sub lease or transfer.
2. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at
trial evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, B1 to B11, Exts.C1 to
C3, PW1 an RW1 and 2. PW1 was Sudharsanan Pillai, the
defacto claimant for the building. His evidence inspired the Rent
Control Court. In fact, the tenants also admitted in their evidence
that Sudharsanan Pillai is presently without any job or avocation
though their contention in the statement of objection is
otherwise. The court held that the need is bona fide. The court
further held that the landlord did not have vacant possession of
any other building at the time of commencement of the Rent
Control Petition. The Court also held that the tenant was
unsuccessful in showing that he satisfies either of the ingredients
of the second proviso. Accordingly, the order of eviction under
RCR.No.306/2010 3
Section (3) was passed. As regards the ground of sub lease, the
first respondent admitted that the lease is governed by rent chit
executed by the first respondent in favour of the landlord. The
court found that there was nothing in evidence to support the
contention that the original tenant was the father of the
respondent. In fact, it was admitted by RW2 in his evidence that
the building has been sub let by RW1 in favour of RW2. The
learned Rent Control Court accepted the above evidence and
ordered eviction on the ground of sub letting also.
3. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred
by the revision petitioner reappraised the evidence and concurred
with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly,
the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of eviction.
4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are
raised and Sri. B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners addressed strenuous arguments before us on the
basis of all the grounds. Mr.Suresh Kumar highlighted that the
landlord was having five other rooms which were identical to
the petition schedule rooms. There was no justification for the
landlord to have picked and chosen the petition schedule
RCR.No.306/2010 4
building itself for the alleged need of Sri.Sudarshana Pillai, his
son. The action of the landlord is actuated by oblique motives.
The learned counsel submitted that the finding of the statutory
authorities regarding the identity of the building is wrong. At
any rate, according to the learned counsel, considering the social
relationship between RW1 an RW2, the court should have
concluded that the arrangement between them is not one of sub
lease or transfer, but it is one of permission only. The learned
counsel argued that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is
vitiated by illegalities, irregularities or improprieties justifying
interference under Section 20. As a last plea, the learned
counsel requested that at least one year’s time be granted to the
revision petitioners for surrendering the premises.
5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of
Mr.Suresh Kumar. We have gone through the judgment of the
Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control
Court. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. Under this jurisdiction,
we are not expected ordinarily to make reappraisal of the
evidence or substitute our conclusions of facts for conclusions
RCR.No.306/2010 5
arrived at by the final fact finding Authority, the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, when such conclusions are founded on
evidence actually available on record. As already stated, in the
instant case, it was admitted by the tenant that Sri.Sudharsana
Pillai, the son of the landlord, is without any job or avocation. In
the light of such admission, the conclusion that the need
projected by the landlord is bona fide is sustainable. Then the
question is whether the tenant is entitled for the protection of the
second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. We are of the
view that the finding of the statutory authorities that, RW1 in
the RCP the first revision petitioner is the tenant, is based on
quality evidence including the admissions of the tenant himself.
It is admitted that RW1, the first revision petitioner, is not
conducting any business in the petition schedule building and that
he is employed with KSEB. When that is the situation, there is
no question of Court upholding the contention that the first
revision petitioner is seeking out his livelihood by carrying out
business. This means that the first ingredient of the second
proviso will have to be found against the first revision petitioner.
When the first ingredient is decided against the first revision
RCR.No.306/2010 6
petitioner, it will follow that the first revision petitioner will not be
entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of
Section 11. We do not find any infirmity about the finding
regarding the liability of the tenant to suffer order of eviction
under Section 11(4)(i). Evidently and admittedly the first
revision petitioner is not in possession at all. He is employed in
KSEB. The question is whether the second revision petitioner
has acquired the status of the tenant. It is in evidence that the
original lease is in favour of the first revision petitioner . When
that is the situation, there cannot be any infirmity about the
order of eviction under Section 11(4)(i).
The RCR fails and accordingly will stand dismissed.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
dpk
