K.T.Sankaran, J. The first respondent in R.C.P.No.56 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur, is the revision petitioner. She challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and that of the Appellate Authority under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2. The Rent Control Petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act and rejected the prayer under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. The appeal filed by the first respondent/tenant before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A.No.62 of 2007 was dismissed, thereby confirming the order under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act. The landlords did not challenge the order of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act and it has become final.
3. The tenant is running a hotel business in the petition schedule building. The case of the landlords is that the first petitioner in the Rent Control Petition bona fide needs to conduct a hotel business in the petition schedule building. She adduced oral evidence as PW1 before the Rent Control Court. The first respondent in the Rent Control Petition (revision petitioner) did not adduce any oral evidence. The Rent Control Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral evidence of PW1 held that the bona fide need put forward by the landlords is genuine.
4. The revision petitioner/tenant raised a contention that the Rent Control Petition is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act since the landlords have another building of their own. This contention was put forward for the first time in the Rent Control Appeal and no such contention was raised by the revision petitioner before the Rent Control Court. An additional document was produced by the tenant before the Appellate Authority to show that the landlords have another building. Copy of the extract of assessment register of the Municipality was produced by the revision petitioner. The Appellate Authority did not allow the application for adducing additional evidence. It was also noticed by the authorities below that there are some corrections in the additional document sought to be produced. The revision petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence to show that the landlords are having another building of their own, in order to attract the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority rightly held that the Rent Control Petition is not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
5. The revision petitioner/tenant raised a contention that she is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In order to succeed, she has to establish that she is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and that no suitable building is available in the locality to shift her business. The revision petitioner/tenant did not produce any material nor did she adduce any oral evidence in support of her contention. The authorities below rightly held that the revision petitioner/tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
6. The ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, does not arise now since the arrears of rent have been deposited by the tenant.
7. The findings of the authorities below under Section 11(3) of the Act are concurrent. The findings of the authorities below are findings of fact. The revisional court would not be justified in interfering with the findings of fact unless they are vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. There is no such illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order and the judgment justifying interference under Section 20 of the Act. The Rent Control Revision is accordingly dismissed.
8. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant submitted that one year's time may be granted to the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. The learned counsel appearing for the landlords submitted that only three months' time may be granted to the revision petitioner/tenant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant that son of the revision petitioner/tenant is getting married during this year and if the tenant is compelled to vacate now, she would be put to untold misery. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the revision petitioner/tenant is granted time upto 31.12.2014 to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that she shall file an affidavit before the executing court within a period of one month from today, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building on or before 31.12.2014 and on further condition that she shall deposit the entire arrears of rent before the executing court within one month from today and also shall continue to pay the monthly rent on or before 10th of the every succeeding month till she vacates the petition schedule building. If the revision petitioner/tenant fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, the execution proceedings can be continued. If the conditions are complied with by the revision petitioner/tenant, the execution proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till 31.12.2014.
Sd/-
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln