IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 1064 of 2002()
1. T.T.KOMUKUTTY, S/O.AHAMMAD HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PREMALATHA, W/O.RANGARAJAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
C.R.P No.1064 OF 2002
------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009
ORDER
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
Sri.Mohammed Iqbal sought for time on the reason that there is
a proposal for settlement. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior
counsel for the respondent/landlady submits that there is no
proposal at all for compromise. Accordingly, we have taken up
the CRP for hearing and we have heard Sri.Mohammed Iqbal as
well as Sri.V.Chiambaresh. In this jurisdiction under Section
20, this court is not expected to sit in appeal over the conclusions
on facts entered by the statutory authorities – rent control court
and the appellate authority especially when those conclusions
are founded on evidence. Under the statutory scheme the final
court on facts is the rent control appellate authority. On going
through the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, we
find that the findings entered by the rent control appellate
authority that the need projected by the present landlady that
CRP.No.1064/2002 2
she need to occupy the petition schedule building for residential
purpose along with her husband is bona fide is founded on
evidence. It was seriously argued before us by Sri.Mohammed
Iqbal that previously the mother of the present landlady had filed
a petition invoking same ground and it is upon the demise of the
mother, that the present RCP has been filed by the present
landlady invoking the ground of own occupation for residence by
herself and her husband. That may be so. But the question to be
considered is whether the need projected in the present RCP is
a bona fide one and whether the positive finding entered by the
appellate authority in that regard, is liable to be interfered with.
Certain facts are not in dispute. The present landlady and her
husband are put up at Coimbatore . Of course, there is a dispute
as to whether they are put up their own building or in any rented
building. As against the assertion of the landlady that they are
put up ina rented building, no evidence has been produced by
the revision petitioner to show that landlady and her husband are
put up in Coimbatore in their own building. Therefore, case of
the landlady that she and her husband are put in a rented
building in Coimbatore has to be accepted. When a landlady,
CRP.No.1064/2002 3
who belongs to Palakkad and is put up presently in rented
building in Coimbatore expressed desire and intention to come
back to her home town so that she could stay in her own
building, the said need has to be accepted prima facie as a
genuine and bona fide one. In the absence of any oblique
motive or any vitiating circumstance, the need will have to be
accepted by the authorities to be bona fide one.
2. We do not find any oblique motive or any vitiating
circumstance, which militates against the genuineness of the
need. The appellate authority, which is the final court on facts,
was impressed by the oral evidence given by the landlady. It
came out in evidence that the landlady’s husband is having a
small time job in Coimbatore which is not sufficient for
sustaining him and his family. It also became evident that the
landlady’s husband has been successful in taking a small shop
room on lease in Palakkad. The evidence shows that the landlady
and her husband intends to reside in the petition schedule
building and the landlady’s husband intends to carry on
business in the room which is taken on lease.
3. Thus, according to us also, the evidence in the case will
CRP.No.1064/2002 4
justify the finding that the need projected by the landlady for own
occupation is a bona fide one. Being a residential building, the
revision petitioner, tenant cannot claim protection of the second
provisio to sub section 3 of Section 11. On going through the
judgment of the rent control authorities, we do not find any
illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting correction under
revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition will stand dismissed.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk
CRP.No.1064/2002 5
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE &
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
————————
C.R.P No.1064 OF 2002
————————
JUDGMENT
9TH JUNE 2009