IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 397 of 2010()
1. T.K.SASIDHARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVINDAN NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
For Respondent :RAJIT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :14/12/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant
under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the
Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of
eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against the
revision petitioner on the ground under sub Section 3 of
Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The landlord had invoked
grounds of arrears of rent and cessation of occupation also
to evict the revision petitioner. But the statutory authorities
denied eviction on those grounds and the order declining
eviction on those grounds have become final and in this
Revision we need have to be concerned only with the
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -2-
correctness of the eviction order passed under Section 11
(3).
2. The need projected by the landlord is that he wants
the building for the purpose of conducting a tea shop, the
very business which the tenant is presently conducting in
the petition schedule building. The bona fides of the need
was disputed by the tenant who contended that the RCP is
liable to be rejected by virtue of the first proviso to sub
Section 3 of Section 11 as the landlord is in possession of
other vacant buildings belonging to the landlord as parts of
the very larger building another part of which is the petition
schedule building. It was also contended that the tenant is
entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub
Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court conducted
an enquiry and the evidence consisted of the oral evidence
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -3-
of the landlord as PW1 and that of the tenant as RW1.
Documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1 and A2 series
and Exts.B1 to B4. Exts.C1 and C2 were respectively
commission report and sketch submitted by an Advocate
Commissioner on the basis of a local inspection. On
evaluating the evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the
conclusion that the need was bona fide. It was also
concluded that the RCP was not liable to be rejected by the
first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. It was further
concluded that the tenant was totally unsuccessful in
showing that he is entitled to the protection of the second
proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly, order of
eviction was passed. The tenant preferred an appeal under
Section 18 of the Rent Control Act before the Appellate
Authority,Thrissur. The learned Appellate Authority made a
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -4-
thorough reappraisal of the pleadings and evidence in the
case and would concur with all the findings of the Rent
Control Court and accordingly, appeal was dismissed
confirming the order of the Rent Control Court.
3. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds
are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority.
Sri.P.V.Chandramohan, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us on
the basis of the various grounds raised. All the submissions
of Sri.Chandramohan were resisted by Sri.Rajit the learned
counsel for the respondent who had lodged a caveat in
anticipation of the RCA. Sri.Chandramohan highlighted
before us that the respondent was an octogenarian and
according to him, the idea of such a person thinking it in
terms of commencing tea shop business in the evening
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -5-
period of his life is inherently improbable and without bona
fides. He would further submitted that the RCP was liable to
be rejected by virtue of the first proviso to sub Section 3 of
Section 11. He drew our attention to the Advocate
Commissioner’s report and submitted that it has been
reported by the Commissioner that one of the rooms in the
larger building is occupied by one Ramesh Babu who is none
other than son of the landlord. Sri.Ramesh Babu has now
become a “Sanyasi” and in this context the learned counsel
drew our attention to Ext.B4 which is a pamphlet under the
caption “Guruvayoor Brahmasthanam” which describes
Sri.Ramesh Babu as a “Swamy”. The learned counsel
submitted that there was no response from the landlord to
the application submitted by the revision petitioner for the
production of the lease deed pertaining to the other rooms.
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -6-
Adverse inference should have been drawn against the
landlord. Counsel further submitted that the finding
regarding the tenant’s eligibility for protection of the second
proviso is erroneous. As already stated all the submissions
of Sri.Chandramohan were resisted by the learned counsel
for the respondent. We have very anxiously considered the
submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through
the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well
as the order of the Rent Control Court. The jurisdiction
under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is revisional in nature and
in this jurisdiction we are not ordinarily expected to make a
reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting
factual findings arrived at by the statutory fact finding
authorities especially when they are founded on evidence.
On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority,
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -7-
we find that all the findings entered therein are founded on
legal evidence available on record. True, there was some
indication in the evidence that the landlord or at least the
landlord’s son Ramesh Babu who is now engaged in spiritual
matters was in vacant possession of one room in the larger
building consisting of five rooms including the petition
schedule building. But as rightly observed by the learned
Appellate Authority, of all the five rooms in the larger
building, the petition schedule building is the only room
which has got a kitchen annexed to the same. Having regard
to the nature of the business proposed, which is for conduct
of a tea shop the learned Appellate Authority was perfectly
justified in taking the view that the petition schedule
building alone is ideally suited for the proposed business
and that there was special reasons for the landlord insisting
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -8-
of getting possession of the petition schedule building itself.
4. As for the finding that the tenant is not entitled for
the protection of the second proviso, we find that such a
finding has been arrived at by the statutory authorities
keeping in mind the statutory provisions as well as binding
judicial precedents including the judgment of the Full Bench
of this Court in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003(2) KLT
230). In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 about the judgment
of the Appellate Authority. The revision necessarily has to
fail and will stand dismissed.
5. Sri.P.V.Chandramohan made a fervent appeal for the
grant of two years’ time for the tenant to vacate the
premises. This request was opposed tooth and nail by
Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the respondent. However,
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -9-
having taken into account all the facts and circumstances
attending on this case, we feel that there is justification for
granting time till 31st September, 2011 to the revision
petitioner subject to the following conditions. The result of
the above discussion is therefore, as follows:-
6. The RCR is dismissed. The execution court is
directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till
30/09/11 subject to the following conditions:-
7. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within
three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful
surrender of the building to the respondent on or before
30/09/11 and undertaking further to discharge the arrears
of rent within one month and to pay occupational charges at
the current rent rate promptly and regularly as and when
the same falls due till the date of actual surrender. It is
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010 -10-
made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of
time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time
and honours the undertakings contained therein.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
kns/-