S.R. Chandrasekharan vs S. Brahmanand and Others

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 which was passed against the Petitioner by the Rent Control Court under Sub-section (8) of Section 11.

The case of the landlords is that the petition schedule building and the premises, where the landlords are conducting the jewellery business, are two parts of a larger building and the landlords need additional accommodation for conducting their business more conveniently. Bona fides of the need was disputed and it was also contended that in any event the advantages, which the landlords may gain by getting eviction, will not outweigh the hardship which will be sustained by the tenant on account of the eviction. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and the evidence at trial consisted of Exts.A1 to A3 series, PW1, Exts.B1 to B9 and RW1 apart from the commissioner''s evidence as CW1 and the reports and plans submitted by the Petitioner as Exts.C1 to C4. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need for additional accommodation is bona fide and it was further concluded that the advantages, which the landlords will gain by getting eviction, will outweigh the hardship if any which may be sustained by the tenant. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed against the tenant.

The Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the revision Petitioner, made reappraisal of the evidence and pleadings and would concur with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. When this revision petition came up for admission, Sri. M. Krishna Kumar, learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner submitted at the very outset that the order of eviction passed u/s 11(8) concurrent though it may be, is unsustainable in law. The learned Counsel asserted that the petition schedule building and the building where the landlords are conducting the jewellery business are two separate buildings and not parts of one and the same building. Sri. P.B. Krishnan, who had already lodged a caveat on behalf of the Respondents/landlords disputed the above assertion of Mr. Krishna Kumar. Under the above circumstances, we permitted both sides to produce photographs before us for solving the above controversy.

Accordingly, today when the case is taken up, both sides placed before us photographs. We are convinced on a careful scrutiny of the photographs that the tenanted premises as well as the premises, where the landlords are presently conducting jewellery business, form parts of one and the very same building.

Mr. Krishna Kumar went on to address arguments on the basis of the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. According to him, the judgment of the Appellate Authority suffers from illegalities, irregularities and improprieties warranting correction u/s 20.

All the submissions of Mr. Krishna Kumar were stiffly opposed by Mr. P.B. Krishnan, who reminded us of the limits of our jurisdiction u/s 20 and submitted that there is no warrant under the present jurisdiction for interference.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. In the present jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to make a de novo reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting the factual conclusions arrived at by the final facts finding authorities, especially when they are reasonable findings entered on the basis of evidence. Having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we are convinced that the findings entered therein regarding the bona fides of the need and also regarding the operation of the first proviso to Sub-section (10) of Section 11 are reasonable findings founded on evidence on record. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any way to invoke our jurisdiction u/s 20. The revision necessarily has to fail and the same will stand dismissed.

After we pronounced the above order, Mr. Krishna Kumar learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner/tenant submitted that at least one year''s time be granted to the revision Petitioner for surrendering the premises. The counsel highlighted certain circumstances for justifying his request. Mr. P.B. Krishnan would oppose the above request for one year''s time. Notwithstanding RCR. No. 222/2011 5 the opposition of Mr. Krishnan, we feel that there is justification for granting to the revision Petitioner time till 31/5/2012 subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery subject to the following conditions:

The revision Petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court as the case may be undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the Respondents/landlords on or before 31/5/2012 and undertaking further to discharge arrears of rent, if any, within one month and to pay occupational charges with effect from 1/7/2011 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month.

We make it clear that the revision Petitioner will get benefit of time allowed as above, only if he files affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein.