Kerala High Court

Against The Judgment In Rca ... vs Revision ... on 14 January, 2021

RCRev..No.196 OF 2020            1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                                     &

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                          RCRev..No.196 OF 2020

    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 35/2014 OF THE RENT CONTROL
 APPELLANTE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I), THALASSERY

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 41/2012 OF THE RENT CONTROLLER (MUNSIFF
                       COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

        1        K.SAINABA,
                 AGED 80 YEARS,
                 W/O. DAYAROTH MOIDU, SAINABA MANZIL, OLD ROAD,
                 KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, (P.O.) KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.

        2        K. NAZEER,
                 AGED 46 YEARS,
                 TIN REPAIR,
                 SAINABA MANZIL, OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM,
                 AMBILAD DESOM, (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.

        3        K. NASAR,
                 AGED 44 YEARS
                 SAINABA MANZIL, OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM,
                 AMBILAD DESOM, (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.
 RCRev..No.196 OF 2020            2


        4        K. MUHAMMED,
                 AGED 42 YEARS
                 SAINABA MANZIL, OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM ,
                 AMBILAD DESOM, (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.

        5        K. AYISHA,
                 AGED 40 YEARS
                 SAINABA MANZIL, OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM
                 ,AMBILAD DESOM, (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.

        6        K. YOUSUF,
                 AGED 56 YEARS
                 S/O. MOIDU (NO OCCUPATION),
                 SAINABA MANZIL, OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM ,
                 AMBILAD DESOM, (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.

        7        K. ISMAIL,
                 AGED 52 YEARS
                 SAINABA MANZIL, OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM ,
                 AMBILAD DESOM, (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.

        8        MUHAMMADALI,
                 AGED 49 YEARS
                 (COOLIE),
                 OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, AMBILAD DESOM,
                 (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

        9        K. SAMEERA
                 AGED 41 YEARS (NO OCCUPATION),
                 OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM,
                 AMBILAD DESOM, (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.

        10       K. NAFEESA,
                 AGED 39 YEARS
                 (NO OCCUPATION),
                 OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM,
                 AMBILAD DESOM, (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA,
                 THALASSERY TALUK.
 RCRev..No.196 OF 2020            3


        11       K. SOUJATH,
                 AGED 37 YEARS
                 (NO OCCUPATION),
                 OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, AMBILAD DESOM,
                 (P.O.), KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
                 SMT.S.INDU

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

                 KODIYIL EECHAL NALAKATH NABEESU,
                 AGED 58 YEARS,
                 D/O. UMMATHUMMA, KOTTAYAM AMSOM,
                 KOTTAYAM DESOM, (P.O.), KOTTAYAM MALABAR,
                 THALASSERY TALUK 670 101.

                 R1 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL.D.KAITHAKKAL
                 R1 BY ADV. SRI.SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL

     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCRev..No.196 OF 2020                 4




                                O R D E R

Dated this the 14th day of January 2021

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

Revision petitioners are the respondents in R.C.P No.41/2012

on the file of the Rent Controller (Munsiff), Kuthuparamba. The

above Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent herein for

eviction under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings

(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').

2. One Moidu obtained the petition schedule building on

lease from the respondent as per rent deed dated 30.4.2003 for a

monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Moidu died. Thereupon the tenancy

devolved upon the revision petitioners, who are the legal heirs of

Moidu. According to the respondent, the revision petitioners

defaulted in paying rent. It is also the case of the respondent that

the son of the respondent Shamseer is unemployed. The

respondent needs the petition schedule building for Shamseer to

start a business in stationery articles in the building. According to

the respondent, Shamseer depends on the respondent to get

possession of the building. The respondent also stated that she or

Shamseer is not in possession of any other rooms. Shamseer is

having the experience and financial capacity to start a business. It

is also stated that the revision petitioners do not depend for their

livelihood on the business in the petition schedule building.

Vacant rooms are available in the locality. Hence the petition was

filed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

3. The revision petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 contested the case

by filing a counter. Respondent No.3 filed a separate objection

supporting the case of the revision petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.

Additional respondents 6 to 11 also filed objections supporting the

case of other revision petitioners. The revision petitioners

contended that there is no rent arrears, and the entire amount was

deposited before the court. The crux of the revision petitioners'

contention was that the bonafide need alleged in the rent control

petition is false and is only a ruse to evict the revision petitioners.

4. To substantiate the case, PW1 and PW2 were examined

on the side of the respondent. Exts.A1 to A14 are also marked.

On the side of the revision petitioners, RW1 was examined, and

Exts.B1 to B5 were marked.

5. After going through the evidence and the documents,

the Rent Controller disallowed the prayer for eviction under

Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. But the Rent Control Court ordered

eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.

6. Aggrieved by the above eviction order, the revision

petitioners filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The

Rent Control Appellate Authority, Additional District Judge-I,

Thalassery considered the appeal and, as per order dated

24.2.2020 in R.C.A No.35/2014 dismissed the appeal confirming

the order of eviction. Aggrieved by the above order of eviction,

this revision is filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners

and the counsel for the respondent.

8. The counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that

the findings by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority

are without considering the contentions of the revision petitioners.

The counsel submitted that the bonafide need alleged in the Rent

Control Petition is only a ruse to evict the revision petitioners. The

counsel also argued that the contentions of the revision petitioners

based on the second proviso of Section 11(3) of the Act is not

properly considered by the authorities.

9. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the Rent

Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently ordered

eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The counsel submitted

that there is nothing to interfere in a revision under Section 20 of

the Act because there is no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in

the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate

Authority.

10. After hearing both sides, we see no reason to interfere

with the impugned orders in a revision filed under Section 20 of

the Act. The scope of the powers of this court under Section 20 of

the Act is limited to an enquiry about the legality, regularity, and

propriety of the order or proceedings under challenge. A re-

appraisal or re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court to

reach different findings is not permissible in normal circumstances

unless there is great injustice committed by the lower authorities.

11. According to the landlady, she wants the petition

schedule building for her son Shamseer. The respondent was

examined as PW1, and her son was examined as PW2. Both of

them adduced evidence in tune with their case in the Rent Control

Petition. There is nothing to disbelieve their evidence regarding

the bonafide need stated in the rent control petition. Nothing was

brought out to rebut the case of the respondent landlady. The

question to be asked by a Judge of facts in a case in which

bonafide need pleaded is by placing himself in the armchair of the

landlord and thereafter decide whether, in the given facts proved

by the material on record, the need to occupy the premises can be

said to be natural, real, sincere and honest.

12. After going through the impugned orders, according to

us, the lower authorities considered the facts and circumstances in

detail and found that the respondent is entitled to get an order of

eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. As far as the respondent's

contention based on the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act

is concerned, the lower authorities considered the same in detail

and rejected it. There is nothing to interfere with the concurrent

finding of fact by the lower authorities.

13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners submitted that they want a reasonable time to vacate

the premises. The counsel submitted that they may be given one

year time to vacate the premises. It is true that the respondent

seriously opposed the above submission to grant one year time to

vacate the premises. But considering the entire facts and

circumstances, we think that one year time can be given to vacate

the premises on condition that the revision petitioners will pay the

admitted rent as compensation for use and occupation till they

vacate the petition schedule building.

In the result, this revision is dismissed, granting one year

time to the revision petitioners/tenants for vacating the petition

schedule building on the following conditions:

i) The revision petitioners/tenants will file an

undertaking before the Rent Control Court within three

weeks to the effect that they will vacate the petition

schedule building within one year.

ii) The revision petitioners/tenants will pay the

entire arrears of rent, if any, and continue to pay the

contract rent as compensation for use and occupation until

the building is vacated.