Pinnankandiyil Sameer vs Kurungot Kunhabdulla

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant 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 on the ground u/s 11(4)(v) (cessation of occupation without reasonable cause for more than six months continuously). he landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not disputed. The definite defence taken by the tenant who is in Kuwait for quite some time is that the building is occupied as a godown for the footwear business which is being conducted by his father power of attorney holder examined as RW1. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A7, C1 to C2 and the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 apart from the oral evidence of RW1. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the eviction ground u/s 11(4)(v) stood established and accordingly, ordered eviction. Though the tenant preferred appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Rent Control Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the evidence would concur with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal.

In this revision u/s 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri. C. Bhaskaran, the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. Sri. Bhaskaran submitted at the very outset that in all cases where eviction ground u/s 11(4)(v) is invoked the crucial evidence will be the report of the Commissioner. In the instant case, there is a report by the Commissioner which is marked as Ext.C1. The above report is on the basis of surprise inspection conducted ex parte. The authorities below were not justified in relying on Ext.C1. Ext.C1 will not show that the building in question was not occupied by the tenant continuously for six months immediately prior to the institution of the RCP.

Even though the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner was very persuasive and appealing his submissions, having regard to the constraint of our jurisdiction u/s 20 which is revisional in nature, we do not find way to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Admittedly, the revision Petitioner/ tenant is not in India. He is in Kuwait. He is not the owner of any business so that the petition schedule building can be used as a godown. His case is that his father owns a footwear business and the petition schedule building is being occupied as a godown by his father for his father''s business. We notice from the evidence that not even a scrap of paper and much less the registration certificate issued under the VAT Act has been produced to prove the revision Petitioner''s contention that he is using the petition schedule building as a godown for his father''s footwear business. Apart from the registration certificate under the VAT Act there should have been other documents which will show that footwear stock is stored in the petition schedule building or was taken out of the petition schedule building during the relevant period.

We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We find that the learned Appellate Authority has made a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence which was available in the case and arrived at a conclusion of fact. According to us, the conclusions of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority are reasonable. When reasonable findings founded on evidence are arrived at by the statutory authorities, this Court should be slow in interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. As for the present case, we do not find any warrant within the well delineated contours of this Court''s jurisdiction u/s 20. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed.

Sri. Bhaskaran, the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner sought for one year''s time to surrender the building. We will not be justified in granting so much of time without notice to the Respondent. Hence, issue notice by speed post to the Respondent to determine the extension of time to be granted to the revision Petitioner for surrendering the premises. Post after service of notice. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the execution court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building for a period of one month from today.