AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
This revision u/s 20 pertains to the building where the Indian Coffee House at Mullakkal is functioning. Under challenge is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by the landladies under Sub Section 3 of Section 11 was that they who are presently residing at Thiruvananthapuram wants to shift their residence over to the petition schedule building. The bona fides of the need was disputed and it was also contended that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The bona fides of the need was disputed by highlighting the circumstance that during the period from 2006 till the date of commencement of the Rent Control Petition i.e. 2009 the landladies had been requesting the revision petitioners to vacate on certain other grounds and also that in certain communications they wanted the revision petitioners to continue as tenants and further that in some of their communications they expressed a need to reconstruct the building and even to dispose of the building. It was contended that inconsistent stands taken by the landladies at different points of time in respect of the building will establish that the need is not bona fide.
The Rent Control Court conducted an enquiry in which the 1st respondent was examined as PW2 and the 2nd respondent her daughter was examined as PW1. On the side of the revision petitioners, their Manager was examined as CPW1. Documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B14 respectively. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the landladies were successful in establishing the bona fides of the need. It was held that as the revision petitioners/tenants was a society they are not entitled for the protection of second proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly order of eviction was passed.
The Rent Control Appellate Authority on considering an appeal preferred by the revision petitioners made a thorough re-appraisal of the pleadings and evidence. However, that authority concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the RCA.
In this revision u/s 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Very extensive submissions were addressed before us by Sri.V.Rajendran the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners. All the submissions of Sri.V.Rajendran were resisted by Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel for the respondents.
Sri. Rajendran drew our attention to Ext.B1 a lawyer notice issued by the landladies in 2006 and he also drew our attention to the oral evidence of PW2 wherein PW2 maintained that the need which is projected in the RCP was conceived by the respondents in the year 2006. Sri.Rajendran argued that if as a matter of fact the need was there in the mind of the landladies in 2006, the same would have found a place in Ext.B1. On the contrary the need that stated in Ext.B10 is an entirely different one i.e. to have an office of the respondents conducted in the building. Sri.Rajendran referred to various other documents, particularly Exts.B12, B4 and B8 and submitted that these documents will show that during the period from 2004-2009 when the RCP was executed the respondents had been taking inconsistent stand in relation to the need for the building. They have even stated in some of the letters that they want the tenants to continue in possession. All these are telltale circumstances which would establish to the very hilt that the need which is projected by the landladies is not a bona fide and only a ruse for eviction. Appreciation of the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence by the statutory fact finding authorities is thoroughly erroneous and there is every warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction, so submitted Sri.Rajendran.
Sri.Hariharaputhran per contra would remind us of the contours of the revisional jurisdiction u/s 20. He submitted that under the scheme of the statute the final fact finding authority is the Rent Control Appellate Authority. When reasonable findings are entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, this Court in revision is not expected to upset those findings by venturing upon a re-appraisal of the evidence.
We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The circumstances which were highlighted by Sri.Rajendran are certainly circumstances which can cast shadows of doubt upon the genuineness of the need projected. When we put a specific query to Sri.Hariharaputhran as to whether the landladies are prepared to suffer an order of injunction restraining them from alienating the building in question and also from letting out the building in question for a period of three years, the learned counsel answered in the affirmative. According to us, the response to our query amply demonstrates that the findings concurrently entered by the two fact finding authorities under the statute that the need projected is a bona fide one is certainly correct.
Apart from the above we should remind ourselves of the well delineated contours of our jurisdiction u/s 20. in the present jurisdiction this Court is not expected to make a re-appraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting conclusions of fact arrived at by the final fact finding authorities under the scheme of the statute viz. the Appellate Authority. We find that the learned Appellate Authority has considered the circumstances highlighted by the revision petitioner against the bona fides. Reasonable findings have been entered accepting the explanation offered by PW2 regarding those circumstances. According to us, there is no scope for interference within the well delineated contours of this Court''s jurisdiction u/s 20. Revision necessarily will have to fail and the same will stand dismissed.
When our decision was made known to Sri.Rajendran, the learned counsel requested for granting at least one year''s time to surrender the premises. The request was opposed by Sri.Hariharaputhran who submitted that even if this court is inclined to grant time to the revision petitioners, the rent presently being paid which was fixed long ago should be enhanced considerably. We find force in the above submission of Sri.Hariharaputhran.
The result of the above discussion is therefore, as follows:
The RCR fails and is dismissed in limine confirming the order of eviction passed under sub Section 3 of Section
The revision petitioners are permitted to continue in possession of the building for a period of one more year from today i.e. till 31/03/13 subject to the following conditions:
a) A competent person representing the first revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondents on or before 31/03/12 and undertaking further through the same affidavit that with effect from 01/03/12 they shall pay occupational charges to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per mensem till the actual surrender is given. The revision petitioners will get the benefit of time granted as above only if the affidavit is filed on time and undertakings contained therein are honoured.
In the meanwhile, there will be an order of injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule premises and also from letting out the petition schedule premises for a period of three years from today. It is needless to remind them that in case they do not occupy the building for the purpose projected by them in the RCP they will be visited with the consequences under sub Section 12 of Section 11.