KARTHIYANI Vs. BHAVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants have filed these revision petitions impugning the common judgment of the local Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Court on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under sub section (3) of Section 11. THE need projected by the petitioners in the RCPs was that the 4th petitioner one Unnikuttan needs to occupy the petition schedule building for his independent residence with his family, so that he can attend on his aged mother Bhavani, the first petitioner in the rent control petitions, and also provide education to his children in educational institutions at Ernakulam offering better facilities than at Tripunitura where his wife house is situated.

(2.) BONA fides of the need was disputed. The tenants contended that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Sri.Unnikuttan himself gave evidence as PW1 and his evidence inspired the Rent Control Court. That court found that the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 cannot have much application in this case where the building is residential in nature. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed under sub section (3) of Section 11.

(3.) THE persuasiveness of Smt.Ranjini notwithstanding, we find it difficult to uphold the learned counsel's submissions. THE jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting is revisional in nature. In this jurisdiction, this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence and substitute factual conclusions arrived at by the statutory authorities especially when they are concurred and are founded on evidence on record. As already indicated, the oral evidence given by Unnikuttan (PW1) that he wants to come out to Cochin and live in his own building rather than continue to live in his wife house inspired the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. True, the first petitioner in the rent control petition passed away. But, Unnikuttan continues to reside in his wife house and his children continue to be educated in schools at Tripunitura. Though there are good schools in Tripunithura, Mr.Unnikuttan's version that there are better schools and more number of such schools in Cochin has been established in evidence. In that view of the matter we are unable to say that the findings of the learned Appellate Authority that the need projected in the rent control petition is vague and erroneous. Necessarily, the revision has to fail.