RCR 75 of 2025 1 2025:KER:27666 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RCREV. NO. 75 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2023 IN RCA NO.61 OF 2015 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2014 IN RCP NO.48 OF 2011 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,CHAVAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: GEETHA BALAN, AGED 57 YEARS W/O BALAN, KALATHUPPURATH HOUSE, IRINGAPRAM AMSOM, THIRUVENKIDAM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680506 BY ADVS. RAJIT AJAIY BASKAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER KRISH SIVARAMAN, AGED 35 YEARS S/O SIVARAMAN, PALISSERY HOUSE, ANNAKKARA AMSOM, THAMARAPPULLY DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680506 SRI.SYED MURTHALA THANGAL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCR 75 of 2025 2 2025:KER:27666 ORDER P.Krishna Kumar, J. The tenant who suffered an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Rent Control Act’, for short) challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court. 2. The respondent herein contended that the petitioner took the tenanted premises on rent from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. On 25.06.1999, the respondent purchased the property from the said predecessor and then intimated that fact to the petitioner herein. There are arrears of rent from October 2006 till the date of filing of the petition. It is further contended by the respondent herein that he, being an Engineering student who completed the final semester bona fide needs the vacant possession of the petition-scheduled building and certain RCR 75 of 2025 3 2025:KER:27666 other rooms in the very same building for starting a shop for home appliances and electronic appliances. The petitioner herein resisted the claim for petition by contending that the monthly rent is only Rs.350/- and that there are no arrears of rent. She further contended that the need projected by the respondent is not genuine and is only a ruse for eviction. It is also contended that the respondent’s father has several landed properties and big business establishments and hence the respondent has no need to start a business for his livelihood. 3. During the trial, the respondents examined PW1 and PW2 and proved Exts.A1 to A11 in his evidence. The petitioner examined RW1 and RW2. Exts.C1 and C2 Commission Report and Sketch were also marked in evidence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised certain contentions to assail the eviction order passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, we RCR 75 of 2025 4 2025:KER:27666 find no reason to re-evaluate the correctness of those findings of facts. There are sufficient materials to hold that the respondents are entitled to get vacant possession of the scheduled building for their own bona fide need. The tenant has not proved the twin conditions for availing the benefit of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645] the Honourable Apex Court held that the power of revision under Section 20 of the Act should not be exercised to reappreciate the evidence and to substitute an independent conclusion in place of the findings arrived at by the Rent Control Court/Appellate Authority. In the absence of any material to show that there is perversity or gross irregularity in the findings of the Courts of the first and second instances, this court is not expected to reconsider the correctness of the concurrent factual findings as to the bona fide need projected by the landlord. The petitioner herein failed to point out any such exceptional circumstances. 6. Therefore, this Rent Control Revision Petition is dismissed. However, considering the fervent plea made RCR 75 of 2025 5 2025:KER:27666 by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months' time is granted to the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the respondent, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the respondent- landlord within six months from the date of this order and that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition- scheduled shop room. (ii) The petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding month, without any default; RCR 75 of 2025 6 2025:KER:27666 (iii) Needless to say, failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- P.KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE sv