K. Abbas vs C.T. Jameela

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the grounds u/s 11(3) and Section 11(4)(iii). The need projected by the landlady was that the building is required bona fide for occupation of her grand son Nousheervan. The bona fides of the need was strongly disputed and it was contended that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. The ground u/s 11(4)(iii) was raised with reference to a building which was possessed by the tenant as per Ext.A6 Property Tax Assessment Register maintained by the local authority. The defence of the tenant as regards this ground was that the tenant did not retain possession of the above building. He surrendered that building almost immediately on taking the building on lease. The Rent Control Court enquired into the case and the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A7, Exts.B1 to B5, oral evidence of PW1 and RWs1 and 2. PW1 was the grandson of the landlady. RW1 was the tenant and RW2 was cited by the tenant for proving that the tenant no longer retains possession of Ext.A6 building. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide and that the tenant was unsuccessful in showing that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. It was also found that the eviction ground u/s 11(4)(iii) was also established. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.

The Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner would reappraise the entire evidence and concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed.

In this revision u/s 20 various grounds are raised by the revision petitioner challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us. Mr. Balakrishna Iyer submitted that the revision petitioner has been paying a very substantial amount by way of rent to the respondent landlady and he was never a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. The learned Counsel further submitted that the landlady did not mount the witness box for testifying as to the need projected by her in the RCP. The evidence, according to him, only shows that apart from the business carried on in the petition schedule premises, the tenant has some agricultural properties fetching some income. There is no legal evidence on the basis of which it could be held that other suitable buildings are available in the locality. As regards ground u/s 11(4)(iii), Mr. Iyer submitted that, RW1 has given convincing evidence to the effect that the tenant did not retain the possession of the building covered by Ext.A4. The learned senior counsel argued that the judgment of the Appellate Authority and for that matter the order of the Rent Control Court are irregular, illegal and improper.

We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We remind ourselves of the contours of our present jurisdiction u/s 20. We are not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting the factual conclusions arrived at by the statutory fact finding authorities especially when those findings are reasonable findings founded on evidence. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are convinced that the findings entered by that authority in the context of both the grounds are reasonable findings founded on evidence actually availably on record. We are not impressed by the arguments of the learned Counsel that the landlady herself should have mounted the witness box for testifying as to the bona fides of the need. There is no hard and fast rule that in any case where ground u/s 11(3) is invoked the landlord/landlady himself/herself should mount the witness box and testify regarding the need. What is required is only that somebody competent to adduce responsible evidence regarding the genuineness of the need projected by the landlady should give evidence. We are convinced that in this particular case, where the very need of the landlady is to accommodate her grand son PW1, PW1 was equally is not more competent as the landlady was of giving responsible evidence regarding the genuineness of the need projected by the landlady in the Rent Control Petition. Evidence adduced by PW1 inspired the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. We are not persuaded to hold that statutory authorities went wrong in accepting the evidence on record. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the findings entered in the context of second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. It became evident that the business carried on in the petition schedule building was not the only source of income for the revision petitioner. In such a situation, it was for the revision petitioner to have adduced cogent evidence and convinced the statutory authorities that the main source of livelihood is the income that he is gained from the petition schedule building. In this case, the evidence will show that relatively higher income is received by the revision petitioner from other source. We do not find any infirmity about the order of eviction passed u/s 11(4)(iii). Admittedly, the building governed by Ext.A6 came to the possession of the revision petitioner after he had taken the petition schedule building on lease. In such a situation, the sufficiency of Ext.A6 building for the tenant''s requirement is to be decided with reference to his requirement at the time of commencement of the Rent Control Petition. We do not find any endeavor even made by the tenant to adduce evidence in the context of the sufficiency of Ext.A6 building for the tenant''s requirements at the time of commencement of the rent control petition. The contention that the tenant has vacated the building covered by Ext.A6 also does not appeal to us. If such a contention is accepted it will always be possible for the tenant to avoid the eviction liability for which he has already entailed by surrendering possession of the additional building which came into his possession, just prior to the commencement of the Rent Control Petition. In short, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction u/s 20.

The RCR fails and will stand dismissed.