K.T.Sankaran, J.
The first respondent in R.C.P.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Rent Control Court II, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner. He challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The respondent/landlord contended that the building, which is a residential house, belongs to him and that it was let out to the tenant (first respondent in the Rent Control Petition) in March, 2007 for a monthly rent of ₹750/-. The tenant was working in G Tech Computer Centre run by the daughter of the landlord. According to the landlord, the house was let out to the tenant as a temporary arrangement and the tenant agreed to vacate the building on his getting another house or when he quits the job in G Tech Computer Centre. According to the landlord, the tenant did not vacate the building even after he left the job in 2008. The landlord contended that the petition schedule house is bona fide required for the residence of his son Sajeev and his family, Sajeev being dependant of the landlord for the purpose of the building.
3. Before the Rent Control Petition was filed, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant. The tenant sent a reply notice, in which, he set up a case that his father had entered into an agreement for sale with the landlord for a consideration of ₹ 1,25,000/- and the tenant's father had paid ₹80,000/- as advance. The landlord stated in the Rent Control Petition that he was constrained to make the father of the tenant also a party in the Rent Control Petition in the light of the averments in the reply notice.
4. The respondents before the Rent Control Court contended in their joint counter statement that there was no lease arrangement as stated by the landlord. They contended that the landlord agreed to sell the petition schedule building and the property to the second respondent (father of the first respondent/tenant) for a total consideration of ₹1,25,000/- and a sum of ₹80,000/- was given as advance. It was also contended that ₹750/- per month was being paid towards the sale consideration.
5. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlord was examined as PW1 and his son, for whose occupation the tenant is sought to be evicted, was examined as PW2. No oral evidence was adduced either by the first respondent or by the second respondent. On the side of the tenant, his mother was examined as RW1.
6. It has come out in evidence that the second respondent had filed a petition before the local grama panchayat, on the basis of which, the landlord was summoned to the panchayat office. It would appear that this notice was issued on the allegation made by the tenant's father that the entry in the occupancy register should be changed to his name on his purchasing the property from the landlord. Later, the Panchayat dropped the proceedings on the correct facts being brought to their notice. Though the case put forward in the counter statement is that there was an agreement for sale, RW1 stated in cross examination that they had purchased the property and the house from the landlord. It has also come out in evidence that the tenant and his father had claimed assignment of the land and the building under the Kerala Land Assignment Act on the basis of the allegation that the property is the excess land vested in the Government. This would show that the landlord had no title. If so, the tenant could not raise a contention that there was an agreement for sale between the landlord and his father. The authorities below noticed that inconsistent and irreconcilable cases were put forward by the tenant and all methods were adopted to create trouble to the landlord. The landlord also alleged that the tenant had created problems even to the erstwhile landlord under whom he was a tenant.
7. The authorities below found that the need put forward by the landlord is genuine. This is a finding of fact. Normally, the revisional court would not interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 20 of the Act. The revision petitioner failed to show that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated on account of any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. The tenant produced certain additional documents before the Appellate Authority. One such document was produced to show that the landlord has other buildings of his own. The Appellate Authority did not accept those documents in the absence of any case for the tenant in his pleadings that the landlord has other buildings of his own. This finding of the Appellate Authority is justifiable, particularly, since there is no averment even in the application for accepting the documents to support any such possible contention by the tenant. The affidavit to receive additional documents was bereft of necessary details and those averments were hardly sufficient to justify a prayer for receiving additional documents. An affidavit bereft of necessary details was filed in support of the application for reception of additional documents. In our view, the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed that application.
8. The authorities below found that there was an oral lease by the landlord to the tenant fixing a monthly rent of ₹750/-. The authorities below found that the case of the tenant and his father that there was an agreement for sale is false. The authorities below also rightly held that the tenant having failed to adduce oral evidence, adverse inference is to be drawn against him.
9. In the Rent Control Revision, the tenant filed I.A.No.16 of 2012 to accept a communication issued by the Secretary of Olavanna Grama Panchayat under the Right to Information Act, as additional document. The document sought to be produced shows that building No.11/613 of Olavanna Grama Panchayat stands in the name of one Sukumary since 10.8.1994 and that Raveendran K.P. (father of the tenant) has been residing with his family in that house. The Panchayat has no authority to decide the question of title and, therefore, it has no authority to issue a certificate relating to title. Moreover, the document issued under the Right to Information Act cannot be accepted in evidence except where it is proved in accordance with law. We also feel that the contention put forward in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.16 of 2012 would even destroy the case put forward by the tenant in his counter statement and would tend to put forward a new case by him. Therefore, we are not inclined to allow the relief prayed for in I.A.No.16 of 2012. I.A.No.16 of 2012 is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings and the documentary and oral evidence in the case. We do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the order and judgment of the authorities below warranting interference in Revision under Section 20 of the Act.
11. The Rent Control Revision fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Send back the records forthwith.
Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant three months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises. Accordingly, three months' time is granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within one month from today, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building before the expiry of three months and also on condition that the tenant shall deposit the entire arrears of rent before the Rent Control Court within one month from today. If the tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the landlord would be entitled to proceed with the execution. If the tenant complies with the conditions, the execution proceedings shall not be commenced/continued before the expiry of three months.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE) Judge ahz/