S M SALIM Vs. KAMALUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner in both these revisions. He challenges the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram under which the tenant's appeal was dismissed and the landlord's appeal was allowed. THE landlord sought to evict the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. As for the ground of arrears of rent, eviction order has been passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority and it was agreed to at the Bar that it will suffice if time is given for getting that order formally vacated under Section 11(2)(c) as almost the entire arrears of rent is already discharged. In view of that stand, we confirm the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) giving to the petitioner/tenant six weeks time from today to make further deposits, if necessary, and to file application under Section 11(2)(c).

(2.) THE need which was projected by the landlord who is none other than the co-brother of the revision petitioner/tenant under sub Section 3 of Section 11 is that he who was all long employed in a gulf country has retired from his job and has come back to Nedumangad, his home town and needs to conduct business in footwear in the petition schedule building. Refuting the above need, it was contended by the tenant that the need is not bona fide; that the Rent Control Petition is instituted as a result of estranged relationship between the parties and the filing of a suit before the local Munsiff's Court by the tenant seeking an injunction against the landlord against forcible eviction. It was also pointed out that on 12/01/05 there was a fire in the petition schedule building resulting from electric short circuit as a result of which the petition schedule building got extensively damaged. THE building was thoroughly renovated by the tenant expending huge amounts. No objection whatsoever was raised by the landlord when the tenant carried out the renovation of the building. If the need was genuine, the landlord would have objected. It was also contended that the RCP is not maintainable as it was averred in the RCP that the tenant was not a building tenant but was only a trespasser. It was also contended that at any rate, the tenant is entitled to the protection of the 2nd proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. THE Rent Control Court conducted enquiry and in the enquiry, landlord got himself examined as PW1 and the tenant was examined as CPW1. Apart from that, the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of CPW2, a witness on the side of the tenant and document Exts.A1 to A4(b) and B1 to B7 and C1 Commission Report.

(3.) ALL the submissions of Sri.Sukumaran were very stiffly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Appellate Authority is, under the statutory scheme, the final court on facts and this Court in revision is not expected to enter findings of fact by appreciating the evidence. The learned counsel also submitted that the evidence of PW1 is quite convincing and that despite searching cross examination nothing was brought out to doubt the veracity of PW1. Regarding the second proviso to sub Section 3, the learned counsel submitted that both the ingredients of the proviso are in the conjunctive and it is the tenant's burden to show by adducing satisfactory evidence that both the ingredients are satisfied in his favour.