Kerala High Court
P.N.Purushothaman vs C.R.Satheesh Chandran Nair on 3 July, 2012
Author: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012/12TH ASHADHA 1934
RCRev..No. 224 of 2012 ()
-------------------------
RCA NO.13/2010 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , ALAPPUZHA
IN RCP. NO.18/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT,CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------------------
P.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 76 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN, KANNANTHARA FROM PATTA PARAMBIL
KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, KUTHIATHODE P.O.
CHERTHALA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.SAJU WAHAB
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
------------------------------------
C.R.SATHEESH CHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA
KODAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KODAMTHURUTHY PANCHAYAT
KUTHIATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, PIN 688533.
BY ADV. V.N.SANKARJEE CAVEATOR
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JJ.
------------------------
RCR NO. 224 OF 2012
------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2012
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose,J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner/tenant on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11.
2. In this revision under Section 20, grounds are raised challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority regarding the bona fides of the need projected by the landlord and also regarding the finding to the effect that the tenant is not eligible for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11.
3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.Sreekumar learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner and RCR. No. 224 /2012 2 Sri.Dr.V.N.Sankarjee learned counsel for the respondent/landlord, who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of this revision petition.
4. Even though Mr.Sreekumar learned senior counsel addressed strenuous submissions before us assailing the finding of the two statutory authorities in favour of the landlord regarding the bona fides of the need projected by the landlord under sub section (3) of Section 11, having reminded ourselves of the contours of our present jurisdiction under Section 20 and having carefully read through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court, we are of the view that the finding that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide one is a reasonable finding founded on inspiring evidence given by PW1, the landlord. When reasonable findings are entered by the fact finding authorities under the statutory scheme, this court will not be inclined to upset those findings sitting in revision.
5. However, the submission of Mr.Sreekumar, that the consideration of the tenant's eligibility for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 by the Rent RCR. No. 224 /2012 3 Control Appellate Authority which is the final fact finding court under the scheme of the Rent Control Act is not satisfactory, appeals to us. In the penultimate paragraph of the Appellate Authority's judgment, the learned Appellate Authority considers the above issue. We extract paragraph 7 of the Appellate Authority's judgment as under ;
" Regarding the second proviso to Section 11(3), the report submitted by the commissioner is self explanatory with respect to availability of other shop rooms in the locality and there is failure to satisfy the second limb of second proviso to section 11 (3) by the counter petitioner and as such the appeal lacks in merits and deserves only a dismissal and I am doing so."
5. As the final court on facts the learned Appellate Authority, whose powers in the matter of appreciation and even adduction of evidence is co-equal to that of the Rent Control Court, was expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties in the context of the second proviso and RCR. No. 224 /2012 4 to enter its own findings regarding both limbs of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. True, the two limbs are in conjunctive and if the tenant fails to show that he does not satisfy either of the limbs, he will not get the benefit of the second proviso. Even then, being the final fact finding authority under the statutory scheme, the Appellate Authority was expected to give reasonable findings regarding the tenant's eligibility for the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11.
6. We, therefore, vacate the findings entered by the learned Appellate Authority regarding the tenant's eligibility for the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 and remit RCA No.13/2010 to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alapuzha. The learned Appellate Authority is directed to enter a fresh finding regarding the tenant's eligibility for the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 and to take a fresh decision in the Rent Control Appeal on the basis of the findings so entered. If either party is desirous of adducing fresh evidence (oral or documentary) in the context of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, the learned Appellate Authority should give such opportunity to the parties. The exercise RCR. No. 224 /2012 5 should be expedited by the learned Appellate Authority and the revised judgment should be passed by the Authority within six weeks of the parties entering appearance before the learned Appellate Authority pursuant to this order.
The parties will enter appearance before the learned Appellate Authority on 16/7/2012.
Sd/-
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE.
dpk
/True copy/ P.A to Judge.
RCR. No. 224 /2012 6