Sugathakumar vs Thankamma George

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The tenant is the revision petitioner and he challenges in this revision u/s 20, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11. In fact, the landlady had invoked other grounds also for eviction, but the only surviving ground is the ground u/s 11(3). The need projected by the landlady who is a widow is that she wants to reside in the petition schedule building which belongs to her. According to her, even if she shifts her residence to the petition schedule building she will continue to get the assistance of her daughter-in-law in whose house she is presently residing, as the houses are situated near to each other. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant who contended that the claim is actuated by mala fides. Before the Rent Control Court the evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A5, B1 to B3, oral evidence of PW1 the landlady and PW2 an employee of the landlady. The solitary witness on the side of the tenant was he himself as CPW1. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence would come to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady is a bona fide one. As the building was a residential one it was held that the order of eviction is liable to be passed and accordingly order of eviction was passed u/s 11(3).

The tenant, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority made a thorough re-appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence. That Authority concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the RCA.

In this revision u/s 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

We have heard the submissions of Sri. Ayyappan Sankar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Sri. J. Harikumar who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent landlady in anticipation of the revision.

The submission of Sri. Ayyappan Sankar before us was that, the findings concurrent though they be, that the need projected by the landlady was a bona fide one is the result of the erroneous appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Our attention was drawn by Sri. Ayyappan Sankar to para-7 of the Rent Control petition and it was submitted that what is pleaded by the landlady was that she will be benefited by the assistance of her daughter-in-law if she shifts her residence to the petition schedule building. According to the learned counsel such assistance can be had by the landlady if she continues to reside along with her daughter-in-law. The need is not a bona fide one.

Per contra Sri. J. Harikumar the learned counsel for the respondent would remind us of the contours of this Court''s jurisdiction u/s 20. Sri. Harikumar submitted that within those contours it is not open to us to make a re- appraisal of the evidence and to substitute factual conclusions arrived at by the two fact finding authorities under the Act.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We remind ourselves of the contours of this Court''s jurisdiction u/s 20. In the present jurisdiction this Court is not expected to make a re- appraisal of the pleadings and evidence when reasonable findings are arrived at by both authorities under the statute namely the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the findings therein that the landlady bona fide needs the petition schedule building for her own residence is a finding founded on inspiring evidence given by the landlady. It may be true that the landlady is presently residing in a house which is very near to the petition schedule building. But that house significantly does not belong to the landlady but belongs to the daughter-in-law. According to us, the need of a widowed woman to start residence in her own house in preference to a house belonging to her daughter-in-law has to be presumed as a bona fide one especially in the absence of oblique motives. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of the findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Revision necessarily will have to fail and the same will stand dismissed. When our decision was made known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel requested one year time to surrender the premises. The above request was opposed tooth and nail by Sri. J. Harikumar. Notwithstanding the opposition of Sri. Harikumar, we are of the view that the revision petitioner can be granted time till 31/03/13 to surrender the premises subject to the following conditions. Accordingly even as we are confirming the eviction order and dismiss the RCR there will be a direction to the execution court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 31/03/13 subject to the following conditions:-

a) The revision petitioner shall discharge the rent which fall due in respect of the petition schedule building since the institution of the Rent Control Petition in 2009 till date less any amount paid during the pendency of the proceedings either before the Rent Control Court or before the Appellate Authority within a period of one month from today and produce receipt before the execution court.

b) The revision petitioner shall pay occupation charges in respect of the building to the respondent landlady at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem with effect from first September, 2012 till actual surrender of the building is given.

c) An affidavit will be filed by the revision petitioner incorporating the undertaking to discharge the arrears of rent and to pay occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem with effect from first September, 2012 and also to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent on or before 31/03/13. The affidavit as directed above shall be filed within three months from today. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time allowed as above only if the affidavit as directed above is filed and all the undertakings contained therein are honoured without fail.