Varun kumar vs Gangadharan

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against the revision Petitioner on the ground under Clause (v) of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 i.e. cessation of occupation without reasonable cause continuously for a period of more than six months. The tenant''s defence to the allegation that he has ceased to occupy the building for a period of six months without reasonable cause was one of denial. It was contended that he is conducting wholesale grocery business in another shop under the name and style of ''Varun Agency''. Further contention was that the building is occupied by him as a godown for Varun Agency. The Advocate Commissioner deputed by the Rent Control Court filed a report which was not very much in favour of the landlord. Relying on that report and evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the eviction ground u/s 11(4)(v) was established and accordingly ordered eviction under that ground, entering the finding that there is a cessation of occupation. The learned Rent Control Court placed strong reliance on the circumstance that the electrical energy consumption in this room during the statutory period of six months was minimal.

The tenant carried the matter in appeal to the learned Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority concurred with the Rent Control Court taking the view that the evidence adduced by the tenant fall short of holding that he is conducting Varun Agency. According to the Appellate Authority, there is No. evidence to hold that Varun Agency business is being conducted by the tenant. In that view of the matter, the eviction order was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

In this revision u/s 20 various grounds are raised assailing the above findings of the Appellate Authority and very extensive submissions were addressed before us by Sri.K.Lakshminarayanan learned counsel for the revision Petitioner. According to him, prejudice has been caused to the revision Petitioner on account of the finding of the Appellate Authority which is to the effect that the tenant is not conducting any business anywhere in the name of Varun Agency.

Per contra, Sri.V.V. Ashokan learned Counsel for the landlord would support the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel reminded us of the narrow contours of our jurisdiction u/s 20 and submitted that within the contours of the revisional jurisdiction we will not be justified in upsetting the concurrent findings entered by the statutory authorities.

We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Though the findings are concurrent, we have made a reappraisal of the entire evidence. We feel that the last request of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner, that an opportunity be given to the revision Petitioner for production of documentary evidence to show that he is using the building in question as godown for Varun Agency, can be granted imposing proper conditions.

We notice that the monthly rent of Rs. 650/- which is being paid by the revision Petitioner to the landlord is low when compared to the rent payable for the similar buildings in Vatakara Municipal Town. Hence, we are inclined to refix the rent as one of the conditions for passage of order.

The result of the above discussion is as follows;

i). The judgment of the Appellate Authority is set aside. RCA No. 25/2010 is remanded to the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara. The Learned Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to permit the Petitioner to produce whatever documentary evidence which the Petitioner wants to adduce for substantiating his contention that he has been occupying the building in question as godown for Varun Agency. If the Petitioner adduces further evidence as permitted, the Respondent/landlord also should be permitted to adduce further documentary evidence in rebuttal of the revision Petitioner''s evidence.

ii). The learned Appellate Authority is directed to complete the exercise as ordered above within two months of the parties entering appearance pursuant to this order.

iii). There will be a further condition for this remand order to operate that with effect from 15/8/2011 the revision Petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month.

iv). The revision Petitioner will file affidavit before the Rent Control Appellate Authority undertaking to pay rent at the above rate with effect from 15/8/2011 and the Appellate Authority shall ensure that such affidavit is filed, failing which this remand order will not operate.

v). We clarify that the Rent Control Appellate Authority will have to take fresh decision on the basis of the evidence already on record and the evidence which the parties may adduce pursuant to this judgment.

The parties will enter appearance before the Reference Court 16/8/2011.

The documents produced by the revision Petitioner before this Court will be returned to the revision Petitioner immediately.