K.P.V. Selvaraj vs Madhavan Pillai

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant u/s 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner on the ground of cessation of occupation u/s 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. The allegation of the landlord was that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than two years preceding the date of the Rent Control Petition. The tenant''s defence was that he was laid up and therefore, he would not conduct business. The evidence in the case consisted of Exts.A1 rent chit, Ext. C1 commission report, oral evidence of witnesses PWs 1 & 2 and CPW1 who was none other than the tenant. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that his cessation of occupation of the building was due to reasons stated in his counter. That Court ordered eviction.

The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction.

In this revision u/s 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri. R.S. Kalkura, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. When Mr. Kalkura''s attention was drawn to the reasonableness of the finding concurrently entered by the statutory authorities that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for about two years, Mr. Kalkura said that during the pendency of the RCP the tenant has recommenced his business and the business, which is carried on in the petition schedule building, accounts for the only source of livelihood for the tenant.

We have considered the submissions of Sri. Kalkura. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority also. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act of 1965 vitiating the findings entered concurrently by the statutory authorities. We do not find any warrant for interference. Ordinarily we would not have been inclined to grant much time to the tenant who is being evicted on the ground of cessation of occupation. However, in view of the fervent appeal of Mr. Kalkura that at least one year''s time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises as he has restarted his business, we feel that the question of granting time can be considered with notice to the respondent landlord.

The result of the above discussions is that RCR is dismissed in limine.