M. Haris v. K.P. Surendran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 R.C.Rev.No. 46 of 2018 ------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 93/2016 of II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 126/2014 of ADDL.MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE ## REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ## M.HARIS, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.MAMMED KOYA HAJI, HARIS & COMPANY, 13/362, PALAYAM ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY ADV.SRI.NIRMAL. S ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ## K.P.SURENDRAN, S/O.K.M.PARTHASARADHI, AGED 73 YEARS, 23/158 D, MAHALAKSHMI ILLAM, KALLAI P.O., NEAR KANNANCHERI GOVT. L.P.SCHOOL, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673003. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.MANJU THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.** ## **==========================** ## **R.C.R. No.46 OF 2018** ## **==========================** Dated this the 5[th] day of March, 2018 ## **ORDER** _Ravikumar, J._ The tenant in respect of the building involved in R.C.P No.126/2014 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode comes up in revision on being aggrieved by the concurrent findings under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') by the authorities below. The respondent landlord filed the said rent control petition under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the tenancy. The landlord sought for ejectment of the tenant, the revision petitioner from the petition schedule shoproom citing the bona fide need of it to start a hardware business. 2. The revision petitioner resisted the contentions mainly contending that the need projected sans bona fides and it is nothing **R.C.R.46/2018** 2 but a ruse to evict him from the tenanted shoproom. It is to be noted that in the rent control petition, eviction was also sought for on the ground of arrears of rent. The revision petitioner contended that there is absolutely no rent arrears. He had also taken up a contention that the respondent landlord is a well known business man in the locality and he is conducting busines in the brand name 'Parthasaradi' and therefore, there is no necessity for him to start a hardware business. Further it was contended that many shop rooms are available in his possession. 3. Before the Rent Control Court, the revision petitioner herein and the respondent were examined respectively as RW1 and PW1. On the side of the landlord, Exts.A1 and A2 were marked and on the side of the revision petitioner, Exts.B1 to B5 were got marked. As noticed hereinbefore, it is after evaluation of the evidence on record and appreciating the rival contentions that the Rent Control Court had passed order of eviction in favour of the respondent landlord under section 11(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the revision **R.C.R.46/2018** 3 herein had taken the matter in as petitioner up appeal R.C.A.No.93/2016. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as per the impugned judgment. It is in such circumstances that the captioned revision petition has been filed. 4. When this matter came up for admission on 2.2.2018, after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court entered into a finding that there is no ground to entertain the revision petition. However, to decide the question regarding the time that could be granted to the revision petitioner to give vacant possession of the tenanted shoproom, notice was issued to the respondent landlord. Consequently, the respondent entered apearance. The learned counsel for the respondent landlord submitted that the landlord is aged 76 years. Based on the concurrent findings in his favour under section 11(3) of the Act, it is submitted that extension of the time for surrender may not be granted. 5. We have taken note of the bona fide need projected by the respondent landlord. He wanted to start a hardware business in the **R.C.R.46/2018** 4 tenanted shoproom. The bona fide need projected by the respondent landlord was found as genuine by the Rent Control Court and the said finding was confirmed by the appellate authority. Nothing is brought to our notice by the revision petitioner to establish that such findings were concurrently entered into by the authorities below based on misreading of the evidence on record or based on no evidence. In fact, it is a state of mind and in the absence of concrete, proven circumstances suggesting otherwise, it cannot be doubted. Therefore, the next question is whether the revision petitioner had succeeded in establishing that owing to his entitlement either under the first proviso or under the second proviso, to section 11(3) of the Act, the landlord is disentitled to get an order of eviction. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would fairly submit non-evidence of a sustainable claim in that regard. In such circumstances and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [2014 (4) KLT 182 (SC)],** delineating scope of revisional power under the rent control laws, **R.C.R.46/2018** 5 there is absolutely no scope for interference with the concurrent findings made by the authorities below, in the case on hand. Considering the overall situations and the submissions made by the revision petitioner for getting extended period, we are of the view that it is only proper and in the interest of justice to grant some reasonable time to give vacant possession of the shoproom to the respondent landlord. He has been conducting the said business in the shoproom since 1990. In such circumstances, we are inclined to grant six months' time from today to the revision petitioner tenant to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shoproom to the respondent-landlord. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit carrying an undertaking that he would give vacant possession of the petition schedule shoproom to the respondent-landlord within the aforsaid time limit before the Rent Control Court. If any execution petition is pending, then it shall be filed before the court where it is pending. Such an affidavit shall be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that **R.C.R.46/2018** 6 during such continuance, the revision petitioner shall continue to pay the rent at the admitted rate. Arrears of rent if any, shall also be deposited/paid. In case of two consecutive defaults in payment of rent, it would result in automatic forfeiture of the benefit granted by us. Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **MARY JOSEPH** **(JUDGE)** **spc/** //true copy// Sd/- P.A.to Judge **R.C.R.46/2018** 7 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **R.C.R.46/2018** 8 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**