EDAKONOTH ABDUL BASHEER Vs. MURIKANDY THAZHE KUNIYIL ASMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is an order of eviction passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of cessation of occupation(under Section 11 (4)(v) of the Act 2 of 1965). The landlady had invoked the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. But, the Rent Control Court declined eviction on that ground and the above order of the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Appellate Authority also. The order declining eviction on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation has attained finality.

(2.) IN this revision,we need to be concerned only with the correctness of the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4) (v). The case pleaded by the landlady was that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than 5 years without reasonable cause. The tenant's defence was that he is conducting business in old motor spare parts in a neighbouring building and that he is using the petition schedule premises as a godown for storing the goods of that business. The allegation of cessation of occupation was denied. IN the enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Court, evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Ext.C1 commissioner's report, PW1, the landlady and CW1 the commissioner and RW1 the tenant. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the ground under Section 11(4)(v) stood established and accordingly ordered eviction.

(3.) WE have very anxiously considered the submission of Mr.Cibi Thomas. WE have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. It is not correct to say that it was relying solely on Ext.C1 ex parte commission report that eviction order was passed against the revision petitioner under Section 11(4)(v). The authorities noticed that on the terms of the admitted lease, it was the obligation of the tenant to pay taxes due for the building to the Municipal Authorities. It was noticed that for years together, the tenant has not remitted taxes. It was further noticed that if, as a matter of fact, the tenant was using the building as godown, there should be other documents for proving the same. The total absence of documents was a circumstance rightly noticed by the learned statutory authorities as militating against the tenant's case of continued occupation. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, this court is not expected to make reappraisal of evidence and substitute conclusions of fact arrived at by the fact finding authorities under the statute especially when such conclusions are founded on evidence. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, we find that the finding therein that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months without reasonable cause is a finding entered on evidence oral, documentary and more importantly circumstantial . WE do not find any warrant for interference. The revision will stand dismissed.