R.C. Rev. No. 214 of 2010. Case: 'Sudarsans' Partnership Firm Vs Kunjunni Nair alias K.K. Unni. Kerala High Court

Case Number:R.C. Rev. No. 214 of 2010
Party Name:'Sudarsans' Partnership Firm Vs Kunjunni Nair alias K.K. Unni
Counsel:For Appellant: V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. and For Respondents: K.K. Chandran Pillai, Adv. for Caveator
Judges:Pius C. Kuriakose and P.S. Gopinathan, JJ.
Issue:Property Law
Judgement Date:October 11, 2010
Court:Kerala High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

Pius C. Kuriakose, J., (At Ernakulam)

  1. The tenant, a partnership firm, challenges in this revision under Section 20 an order of eviction passed concurrently against them on the grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965.

  2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior Counsel for the revision petitioner tenant and also Sri. K.K. Chandran Pillai, learned senior Counsel for the respondent landlord who had lodged a caveat before this Court in anticipation of the revision.

  3. Even though Sri. Chitambaresh, assailed the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, on the merits of the matter we feel that in this revision it is not necessary to consider the correctness of the findings entered by the Appellate Authority except the finding that the need projected by the landlord under Section 11(3) is bona fide. As for that finding, we are not persuaded to hold that there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the finding concurrently entered by the statutory authorities that the need projected by the landlord under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 is bona fide. However, we found considerable merit in the submission of Sri. Chitambarsh that the learned Appellate Authority did not discharge its function as statutory Appellate Authority by examining the legality and correctness of the finding entered by the Rent Control Court in favour of the landlord in the context of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11 and also the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner under Section 11(4)(iii).

  4. Sri. K.K. Chandran Pillai, learned senior Counsel for the respondent/landlord also conceded before us that the Appellate Authority apparently has not considered the question of the tenant's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11 or the correctness of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iii). But, according to him, it will be possible for this Court, on a reappraisal of the evidence available on record, to agree with the Rent Control Court on the above aspects also. A remand to the Appellate Authority, the learned senior Counsel submitted, will result in further delay in this matter where the landlord instituted the RCP way back in 1999. Mr. Chandran Pillai also submitted that for the petition schedule building having an approximate carpet area of 400 sq. feet situated on M.G. Road in Thrissur...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL