Point of Law: Section 20 of Act cannot enable High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal.

ORDER :

Shoba Annamma Eapen J.

The tenants are the revision petitioners. They filed these revision petitions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”), challenging the common judgment dated 30.11.2018 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Ernakulam in R.C.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2017. As per the said judgment, the Appellate Authority confirmed the orders of eviction granted by the III Additional Munsiff and Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, in favour of the respondent-landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act.

2. Rent control petitions were filed by the respondent/landlord under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. I.A.No.6526/2016 was filed for joint trial of the rent control petitions and since the contentions of the petitioners in both the petitions were on similar lines, the petitions were tried jointly. The landlord is the owner of a two storeyed building by name 'Sooraj Building' at Mathrubhumi junction at Kaloor and the rent control petitions were filed for eviction of the two rooms on the ground floor, which are adjacent premises, for the bona fide need of the dependent son of the landlord to start an exclusive boutique shop for men and women. It was contended that his son, who was a qualified textile and garment designer, is having immense knowledge and expertise in designing and hence, can earn a good living if he starts business at a commercially important location.

3. The respondents-tenants in the respective rent control petitions raised similar objections. They contended that the petition schedule shop rooms, which form part of the building, are small and separated and are not sufficient to meet the requirements of a boutique shop and even admitting that, even if the need is bona fide, the landlord has rooms of his own in the same building and that it is totally unsuitable to start a business as proposed by the respondent. It was further contended that the tenants are depending mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises for their livelihood and there are no suitable rooms available in the locality for them to carry on the same.

4. PWs 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the landlord and RWs 1 to 3 on the side of the tenants. Exts.A1 to A11 and C1 & C2 commission reports were received in evidence before the Rent Control Court.

5. The Rent Control Court tried the petitions jointly. Eviction under Section 11(8) was not much canvassed by the landlord and hence, after considering the evidence, prayer under S.11(8) was declined and eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was allowed as per order dated 31.10.2016. The petitioners were directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms within a period of forty five days from the date of that order. R.C.A.No.5/2017 (against RCP No.135/2015) and R.C.A.No.6/2017 (against RCP No.136/2015) were the appeals preferred by the respective petitioners. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, considered the entire matter in detail. The evidence was considered and re-appreciated. After such elaborate consideration, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and the appeals were dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The petitioner/tenant in R.C.R.No.163 of 2019 is conducting business of electroplating and gold covering in the petition schedule room. The petitioners/tenants in R.C.R.No.139 of 2019 are running a shoe shop in the petition schedule shop room. Both are adjacent rooms. The common contentions raised by the tenants are that the need projected by the landlord lacks bona fides. The landlord is in the habit of evicting tenants and after getting the vacant possession of the tenanted premises, the landlord leases out the building to other tenants and they further contended that the building is unsuitable for the need