CHERIYANDI SIDDIQUE Vs. P P RASINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery confirming the order of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction under sub Section 3 of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. In fact, the landlady had invoked the ground under Section 11(4)(ii) also. But the Rent Control Court declined eviction under that ground and the above order was suffered by the landlady. Thus, in this revision we need have to be concerned only regarding the eviction order presently confirmed by the Appellate Authority under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by the landlady was that she wants to accommodate her brother P.P.Niyas so that he can start fruit business in the building. According to the landlady, Niyas is a dependent family member who completed his studies and has no job or business. The bona fides of the need was disputed and the tenant also claimed the protection of second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlady's brother Niyas himself was examined as PW1. His evidence inspired the Rent Control Court. That court on appreciating PW1's evidence as well as the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide. It was also found that the tenant was unsuccessful in showing that he satisfies the two ingredients of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The tenant preferred appeal against the eviction order and the learned Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence considering that appeal. One of the arguments which was addressed before the Appellate Authority was that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court the parties negotiated for a compromise and it was agreed that the tenant will pay an enhanced rent of Rs.1,200/- (an increase of Rs.500/- over the existing contract rent) and that the understanding was that once rent is enhanced, the RCP will be withdrawn. The landlady's explanation was that the above increase was agreed to by the tenant who was actually collecting rent at that rate from the alleged transferees of the building. The tenant actually wanted the landlord to give him time to evict those transferees. The landlady only granted such time imposing a condition that the tenant must pay to the landlady what he was getting from his transferees. The learned Appellate Authority on re-appraising the evidence did not find any infirmity with the factual findings entered by the Rent Controller. According to the Appellate Authority even if during the pendency of the proceedings there was a mediation and rent was enhanced pursuant to the mediation, that event will not adversely affect the bona fides of the need projected. The Appellate Authority accordingly, would confirm the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3).

(2.) IN this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised and Sri.P.U.Shailajan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed extensive arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. Apart from attacking the findings entered by the statutory authorities saying that they are all contrary to the facts on record Sri.Shailajan would highlight the conduct of the landlady during the pendency of the proceedings in receiving enhanced rent as a conduct adversely affecting the bona fides of the need projected. The learned counsel submitted that if the need was bona fide, the landlady would not have agreed to receive a higher rent. He would lastly submit that even now, the idea of the landlady is only to let out the building on a still higher rent to some new tenant.