National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Murugan R.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed u/s 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the eviction order passed against the revision petitioner on the ground of additional accommodation under Sub-section (8) of Section 11. In this revision various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed us on the basis of all those grounds. Our attention was drawn to Ext.B1 letter under which the landlord has agreed for renewal of the lease in 2006 on condition that the tenant pays a higher rent. According to the learned Counsel, if as a matter of fact, the need for additional accommodation was genuine, the landlord would not have agreed for renewal. The intention of the landlord is only to compel the tenant to pay still higher rent.

The submissions of Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath were opposed by Sri. R.S. Kalkura, who has lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent landlord.

We have considered the submissions. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Even though the submissions of Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath cannot be said to be totally unattractive, in view of the settled position that just because the landlord sought for enhancement of rent, the need projected by him later under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 or Sub-section (8) of Section 11 canno be branded as not bona fide, it is difficult to accept the submission that Ext.B1 is indicative of absence of bona fides. Moreover, having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction u/s 20, our enquiry is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, is vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety as contemplated u/s 20. When that question is asked, we become oblige to answer the same in the negative. The revision necessarily has to fail.

As a last plea, Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath, requested that a reasonable time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. Considering the above request, even as we dismiss the RCR confirming the order of eviction, we are inclined to direct the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/12/2010. We order accordingly.

The R.C.R. is dismissed subject to above observations and directions.