VALIYAVANGALASSERI BABU Vs. KALACHERIKADAVATH CHEKKAN ALIAS KUTTIALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner by the Rent Control Court under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by the respondent/landlord who was past 70 years at the time of filing of the RCP is that he needs the building for conduct of trade in groceries. The bona fides of the need was stiffly disputed with reference to two aspects. The first aspect was that the landlord is too old to conduct trade. Second aspect was raised in the context of the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. It was pointed out that a building belonging to the landlord is under the vacant possession of the landlord. The landlord himself gave evidence as PW1. His evidence inspired the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Regarding the second aspect the landlord placed on record Ext.A2 property tax assessment register which showed that the building in question was not vacant. Rent Control Court accordingly would conclude that the need is bona fide and also that the RCP is not liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court also found that the revision petitioner cannot be entitled for the protection of the second proviso as he himself is having another room in his possession and hence, it cannot be said that other buildings are not available in the locality. Accordingly, eviction was ordered under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Appellate Authority on appraisal of the entire evidence concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.B.Krishnan addressed very strenuous and persuasive arguments based on the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. The persuasiveness of Sri.Krishnan notwithstanding, having gone through the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court and having reminded ourselves of the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any ground for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20. Ext.A2 is property tax assessment register which enjoys the presumption under Section 26 of Act 2 of 1965. In fact, we enquired of Sri.Krishnan as to whether the revision petitioner is prepared to take out a commission from this Court and prove that the building covered by Ext.A2 is remaining vacant. The response was lukewarm. We do not find any infirmity about the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority. The revision will fail and will stand dismissed.

(3.) However, in response to the fervent request of Sri.Krishnan for grant of time, we feel that the revision petitioner can be granted time till 30/04/11 subject to the following conditions:-