A tenant must substantiate both consistent business operation and lack of alternative premises to claim protection under the Rent Control Act's eviction provisions.

O R D E R

C.S.Sudha, J.

This rent control revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has been filed by the appellant in R.C.A.No.21/2013 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Kozhikode, confirming the order dated 31/12/2012 in R.C.P.No.22/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Koyilandy. The respondent herein is the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. and the respondent in the R.C.A. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.

2. The petitioners-landlords moved the RCC seeking eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. According to the petitioners, the petition schedule room was let out to the respondent on 20/12/2008 for a monthly rent of ₹400/-. The respondent is not regularly conducting any business in the shop room. He opens his shop once in a while. The rent from January, 2011 is in arrears. Though lawyer notice was sent to the respondent, the arrears has not been cleared so far. The petitioners also allege that the tenanted premises is required bona fide for the first petitioner's son, who intends to start a business in hardware. The petitioners are not in possession of any other rooms suitable for the need. The respondent is not regularly conducting any business in the tenanted premises and hence he is not entitled to the benefit under the second proviso to Section 11 (3).

3. The respondent filed counter denying the bona fide need alleged and contended that it is a mere pretext for eviction. The petitioners are in possession of vacant rooms in their possession, which are suitable for the need alleged. The allegation that the rent is in arrears, is incorrect and false. Though the respondent had offered rent to the petitioners, they refused to accept the same. Moreover, an advance amount of ₹9,000/- has also been paid by the respondent when the premise was taken on rent. The allegation that he is not conducting business regularly in the petition schedule room, is false. The respondent is entitled to the benefit of the first and second provisos to Section 11 (3). Hence, according to the respondent, the petitioners are not entitled to an order of eviction as prayed for.

4. The RCC by order dated 31/12/2012, dismissed the R.C.P.

R.C.A.No.21/2013 filed by the petitioners-landlords has also been dismissed confirming the order of the RCC. Aggrieved, the petitioners-landlords have come up in revision.

5. In the revision petition, it is alleged that the courts below without properly appreciating the evidence and materials produced, have arrived at the findings, which are contrary to law and therefore liable to be reversed.

6. The point to be considered is whether the findings of the courts below, suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as canvassed on behalf of the petitioners-landlords.

7. Heard Adv.M.A.Zohra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Adv.K.Deepa, the learned counsel for the respondent.

8. As stated earlier, it is the concurrent findings of the courts below that have been challenged in this proceedings by the petitioners-landlords. As per Section 20 , this Court can, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and it may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. It is no doubt true that this Court under Section 20 is not expected to reappraise the evidence produced by the parties in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and the limited question that falls for its consideration is whether the procedure followed by the RCC and the RCAA is illegal, irregular or improper. Nevertheless, it is well settled that the powers of Section 20 are wider than what is conferred under Section 115 CPC. InNalakath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan