Somarajan and Another vs Parameswaran Pillai

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed u/s 20 by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an order of eviction passed against the revision petitioners by the Rent Control Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 11.

The need projected by the landlord, a retiree from the Government service, was that in 1980 when he joined the Government service he was conducting a bakery in the petition schedule premises and now that he has returned from Government service, he needs to conduct business in pooja articles in the petition schedule building. It was stated in the RCP itself that in view of the proximity of the petition schedule building to the Mahadevar Temple , Kollam, the conduct of such business in the building will be very successful.

The tenants revision petitioners, through the statement of objections, contended that the need is not bona fide. It was also contended that the landlord has sold away two or three rooms some time prior to filing of the RCP and that in respect of the petition schedule building itself there was an agreement for sale and purchase between the parties. It was also contended that for believing the promise of the landlord, the tenants disposed of another item of property which had in fact been offered as security for this lease. Alternatively, it was contended that the tenants are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11.

In the enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 and A2, Exts.B1 to B6, Ext.C1 commission report, oral evidence of PWs1 & 2 and RWs 1 to 7. The Rent Control Court, on evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide and also that the tenants were unsuccessful in showing that they satisfy the two ingredients of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.

The Appellate Authority on considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners made a through reappraisal of the evidence. That authority concurred with all the conclusions 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. We have heard the submissions of Sri. K. Subashchandra Bose, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and also those of Sri. Raja Vijayaraghavan, who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of the RCR.

Mr. Subashchandra Bose submitted that the conduct of the landlord in disposing of two rooms in the ground floor of the building belonging to him strongly indicates that the need is not bona fide. The learned Counsel further submitted that in respect of the petition schedule building itself, an agreement for sale, though orally, had been entered into between the parties. That is a circumstance which will show that the need is not bona fide. Mr. Bose also pointed out that even now one room is remaining vacant in the first floor of the building. The learned Counsel assailed the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the context of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11.

Mr. Raja Vijayaraghavan per contra would support the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein. The learned Counsel submitted that in the present jurisdiction, this Court will not be justified in making reappraisal of the evidence and substituting factual conclusions concurrently arrived at by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.

We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also the order of the Rent Control Court. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction for correcting the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We notice that the crucial findings entered therein regarding the bona fides of the need and tenant''s liability for protection of the second proviso are all findings entered on the basis of the evidence available on record. As already indicated, the respondent, before he joined the Government service, was doing business. Admittedly, he was retired from Government service. The building in question is situated near to Mahadeva Temple. When such a landlord comes forward with a case that he wants to conduct business in pooja articles in the petition schedule building, the need can be presumed to be bona fide and in such an event, it will be the tenant''s burden to make out strong circumstances which would show that the need is not bona fide but is only a ruse. We notice that some of the witnesses examined on the side of the revision petitioners themselves demolished the revision petitioners'' case regarding the landlord''s availability of other rooms in the same building. It was inspiring evidence, which was given by the landlord as PW1. Despite searching cross examination, he stood firm on all material particulars. We do not think that we will be justified in upsetting the finding of the statutory authorities that the need is bona fide. Coming to the question of tenant''s eligibility for protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11, it is trite by various decisions including that of the Full Bench in Francis Vs. Sreedevi Varassiar, that it is the tenant''s burden to show by adducing cogent evidence that he satisfies both the ingredients of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. We are of the view that the finding that the tenants are unsuccessful in showing that they satisfy either of the ingredients is entered on the basis of legal evidence. In fact, RW 6 deposed that other buildings are available in the locality. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, as envisaged by Section 20, tainting the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The RCR is liable to fail and we dismiss the same, however, without any order as to costs.

As a last plea, Mr. Subashchandra Bose requested that at least one year''s time be granted to the revision petitioners for surrendering the premises. This request was stiffly opposed by Sri. Raja Vijavaraghavan. However, we feel on a consideration of the totality of circumstances attending on this case, that there is justification for granting time till 31/5/2011. Hence, we direct the Execution Court to keep all the proceedings for delivery in abeyance till 31/5/2011 subject to the following conditions;

The revision petitioners shall file affidavits before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building on or before 31/5/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent if any will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid as and when the same falls due till the date of actual surrender.

We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of time granted as above only if the affidavit is filed on time.