The landlord's bona fide need for eviction must be sincere and evidenced, while the High Court's revisional powers do not extend to re-evaluating evidence or findings of fact.

ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.21 of 2018 on the of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kalpetta, a petition filed by the respondent herein-landlord under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop rooms. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act is that of the landlord to start a furniture business in the petition schedule shop room and the two adjacent shop rooms. Before the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed an objection opposing the order of eviction sought for. On the side of the landlord, he was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A24 were marked. On the side of the tenant, he was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked. The Building Tax Assessment Register was marked as Ext.X1. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court by the order dated 16.11.2022 granted an order of eviction under (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act and the tenant was directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the landlord, within the time limit specified in that order, failing which the landlord can get the order executed through the process of law. The Rent Control Court found that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under (3) of the Act is bonafide, that the first proviso to (3) of the Act has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to (3).

2. The order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court was under challenge in R.C.A.No.5 of 2023 filed by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Kalpetta, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. During the pendency of that appeal, the tenant filed an interlocutory application, invoking the provisions under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to accept on record an attested copy of the agreement dated 10.09.2020 executed between the landlord and one Noufal; an attested copy of the letter dated 05.02.2021 of Noufal addressed to the Secretary of Kalpetta Municipality; and an attested copy of a demand slip dated 14.10.2020 issued to the said Noufal by Kalpetta Municipality. Those documents were placed before the Appellate Authority to contend that the landlord has another shop room in the very same building, which can be used for the need projected in the Rent Control Petition, instead of evicting the tenant from the petition schedule shop rooms. The Appellate Authority dismissed R.C.A.No.5 of 2023 by the judgment dated 27.09.2023, whereby the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act stands confirmed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.

4. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of eviction granted concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

5. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner would confine the challenge made in this Rent Control Revision against the finding of the Rent Control Board as well as the Appellate Authority that the need projected in the Rent Control Petiti