K.T.Sankaran, J.
The tenant challenges the concurrent finding of the Rent Control Court and that of the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Respondents 1 to 4 filed R.C.P.No.177 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court (III Additional Munsiff), Ernakulam under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The ground for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was found against the landlords. The bona fide need put forward by the landlords, four ladies, is that they want to conduct a ladies tailoring shop in the petition schedule building. The tenant disputed the bona fide need. He contended that the landlords are rich people and they do not have any experience in conducting a tailoring shop. The tenant also raised a contention that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
3. The petition schedule building is situated in the 2nd floor of a larger building called “City Point Building” at Durbar Hall Road, Ernakulam. It is submitted that the petition schedule building is having an area of 1040 sq.ft. It is stated that the rent being paid by the tenant is only ₹1,311/- per month. The tenant is conducting screen printing business in the petition schedule building.
4. The first petitioner in the Rent Control Petition was examined as PW1 and her father was examined as PW2. The tenant was examined as RW1.
5. The Rent Control Court considered the oral and documentary evidence in the case and held that the landlords established the bona fide need put forward by them. The contention raised by the tenant is that the landlords do not know tailoring and they have no previous experience in conducting a tailoring shop. It has come out in evidence that one of the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition was conducting a tailoring shop in another room in the main building and it was closed in the year 1999. The Rent Control Court rightly held that to conduct a tailoring unit, it is not necessary for the landlords to know the work of tailoring. It has come out in evidence that they intend to run the tailoring unit with the help of employees. It is not the requisite of Section 11(3) that the landlord should know the exact work in the business proposed to be run by him. To run a tailoring unit, it is not the requirement of law that the landlords should know stitching or tailoring work. The Rent Control Court also considered the claim made by the tenant under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and held against him. Though the tenant stated in evidence that he has accounts for running the screen printing business, he did not produce the same before Court. In order to establish the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3), the burden to prove that the tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises and that there is no other suitable building available in the locality to accommodate his business, is on the tenant himself. The tenant failed to prove both the ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
6. The Appellate Authority, on a reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, concurred with the view taken by the Rent Control Court. The findings rendered by the authorities below are findings of fact. The revisional court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, would be slow to interfere with the findings of fact. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order and judgment of the authorities below justifying interference under Section 20 of the Act.
7. The Rent Control Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought a reasonable time for the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that time up to 31.12.2014 can be granted to the tenant to vacate the building.
Accordingly, while dismissing the Rent Control Revision, the petitioner/tenant is granted time till 31.12.2014 to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within one month unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building on or before 31.12.2014 and also on condition that the tenant shall deposit before the Rent Control Court the entire arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today. The tenant shall continue to pay the monthly rent on or before 10th of the succeeding months, till he vacates the building. If the tenant complies with the conditions mentioned above, execution proceeding shall not be initiated or if already initiated, it shall be kept pending till 31.12.2014. If the tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the respondents/landlords would be entitled to proceed with the execution forthwith.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE) Judge ahz/