Askar Ali vs Abdul Salam

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed u/s 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 under Sub-section (3) of Section 11. Apart from the rent control petition in question, the landlord''s wife had instituted two other rent control petitions seeking eviction of her tenants. The common need urged in these three rent control petitions was that the landlord, who was employed abroad and has now come back to the home town, wants to conduct whole sale business in textiles.

Even though bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant, the rent control court found that the need is bona fide on appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. In the other two rent control petitions, in spite of the finding that the need is bona fide, the court did not order eviction as it was found that the tenants in those cases were entitled for the protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. In the instant case, the rent control court found that the tenant did not adduce any evidence and accordingly it was found that the tenant was absolutely unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies either of the ingredients of the second proviso. Accordingly, in the present case order of eviction was passed.

The appellate authority, considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner tenant, reappreciated the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the rent control court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

In this revision u/s 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the appellate authority. Sri. V. Ramkumar Nambiar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. Mr. Nambiar submitted that in one of the two rent control petitions instituted by the landlord''s wife urging the very same need, the order declining eviction has attained finality. According to Mr. Nambiar, since the need is to conduct wholesale business in the rooms covered by all the three rent control petitions and now that it has become clear that one of the rooms is not available for the landlord, it has to be found that it is impossible for the landlord to accomplish the projected need. The learned Counsel argued that considering the implications of the finality attained by the order declining eviction in one of the RCPs filed by the landlord'' wife, the impugned judgment of the appellate authority also be interfered with.

Even though Mr. Ramkumar Nambiar was very persuasive in his submissions, we do not think that we will be justified within the contours of our jurisdiction u/s 20 of Act 2 of 1965 in interfering with the judgment of the appellate authority. As already noticed even in that rent control petition, where the eviction order was finally declined, the finding of the statutory authorities was to the effect that the need is bona fide. In the present RCP we notice that the finding that the need is bona fide has been entered on the basis of the legal evidence available on record. When such a finding is entered, then the question to be considered is only whether the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of either of the two provisos to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. As for the first proviso the revision petitioner did not have a contention at all that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso. Then the question is whether the rent control petition will fail by virtue of the second proviso. We notice that the finding of the statutory authorities that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies either of the ingredients of the second proviso, which are in the conjunctive, is founded on legal evidence. This means that it is not possible to say that there is any illegality, irregularity and impropriety about any of the findings entered by the statutory authorities. The position being so, there is no way to interfere with the judgment of the appellate authority. The revision petition necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed.

As a last plea, Mr. Nambiar requested that reasonable time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. The learned Counsel submitted that there is justification for granting at least one year''s time. We do not think that we will be justified in granting so much of time, in the absence of the landlord. We, however, are inclined to grant six months'' time from today to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises subject to following conditions;

i). The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent landlord within six months from today and undertaking further through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid without fail till actual surrender is made.

ii). We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted above only if he files affidavit as directed above and honours the undertakings in the affidavit faithfully.