SUNDARAN Vs. CHANDRAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, in a Rent Control Petition filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the 'Act') is the revision petitioner herein. The said petition viz., R.C.P.No.67 of 2015 was filed by the respondents herein under the aforesaid sections seeking ejectment of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule shop room. The revision petitioner has been conducting business of renting of materials and utensils for marriage purpose in the said shop room. Before the Rent Control Court, on the side of the respondents/landlords PWs1 to 3 were got examined besides getting marked Exts.A1 to A6. The revision petitioner was examined as RW1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on his side. Ext.C1 is the Commission Report. It is the appreciation of the evidence on record as also the contentions, that culminated in the order, whereby the prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was granted and the prayer for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act was rejected. The revision petitioner took up appeal as R.C.A.No.250 of 2016. As per the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court. It is in the said circumstances that this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

(3.) There is no dispute regarding the tenancy. The bona fide need projected in the rent control petition by the respondents/landlords was that the second respondent intends to start a grocery shop in the petition schedule shop room. Evidently, both the authorities concurrently found that the landlords have succeeded in establishing the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition. Since that is a finding of fact, unless a ground is brought out to interfere with such concurrent findings, in exercise of the revisional power, no interference could be made. The permissible grounds have been enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Dilbahar Singh [2014 (4) KLT 182 (SC) ]. True that, even concurrent findings could be interfered with, if a case is made out that the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below were based on a misreading of the evidence on record or that it is based on no evidence. It appears that the only contention raised by the revision petitioner herein before the authorities below is that the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition is not a genuine one. It was contended by him that the second respondent for whose benefit ejectment was sought for, is suffering from cardiac disease. Hence, according to the revision petitioner, such a business is a hazardous job and it needs physical fitness. In short, his case is that the second respondent shall not do such a business in the said circumstances. Essentially, it is a matter for the landlords viz; the respondents to look into. It is not for the revision petitioner to advise the second respondent not to start such a business owing to his alleged illhealth. Even if such a physical ailment as alleged by the revision petitioner is there, how can it be said that conducting a grocery shop is a hazardous job? We do not find any reason to upheld the contention of the revision petitioner and in fact, it was rightly rejected by the authorities below. The question is whether the revision petitioner has succeeded in establishing that he is entitled to get the benefit either under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act or the second proviso, to Section 11(3) of the Act. According to the authorities below, the revision petitioner had not succeeded in establishing that he is entitled to get the benefit under any of the said provisos. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not bring to our attention anything to show that the said conclusions were wrongly arrived at by the authorities below based on total perverse appreciation of the evidence on record. In short, we do not find any reason to hold that the revision petitioner is entitled to the protection either under the first proviso or under the second proviso, to Section 11(3) of the Act. When that being the position, we do not find any reason to hold that the Authorities below, went wrong in passing the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. In short, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. A submission was then made on behalf of the revision petitioner that some reasonable time may be granted to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room. It is submitted that in view of the nature of the business, which has been conducting, some reasonable time may be granted to enable him to find another suitable place. In the said circumstances, we are inclined to grant six months time from today to the revision petitioner tenant, to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the respondents. In such circumstances, the revision petitioner shall file an affidavit carrying an undertaking that he would give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room on the next date of expiry of the aforesaid period before the Rent Control Court. Such an affidavit shall be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If there is any arrears of rent it shall be paid/deposited by the revision petitioner. He shall also continue to pay rent at the admitted rate during the aforesaid period. Any two, consecutive defaults in payment of rent, would entail automatic recalling of the benefit extended as per this order. Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.