The court emphasized limited interference with concurrent factual findings unless shown to be perverse.

O R D E R Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 Soumen Sen, C. J.

We have heard Mr. G. Sreekumar (Chelur), learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner assails the judgment of the appellate authority affirming the order of the rent control court in proceedings initiated for eviction of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement.

3. We have carefully perused the order of the rent control court as well as the judgment of the appellate authority. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the respondent has a bona fide need for the premises in question, consequent upon the injury suffered by him while working in the Merchant Navy, and that he intends to settle at Kodungallur, where the subject property is situated.

4. The law is well settled that unless the concurrent findings of fact are shown to be perverse, the revisional court shall not interfere with such findings. Mere possibility of the revisional court taking a different view on the facts and circumstances of the case would not justify interference with the concurrent findings, once such findings are found to be a possible view based on the evidence on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to vacate the premises in question on such reasonable terms and conditions. Learned counsel prayed for one year’s time with conditions that may be fixed by the execution court.

6. While we are not entertaining the revision petition, we observe that it would be open to the petitioner to approach the execution court with a similar prayer, and it would be for the execution court to decide with regard to any time period that may be allowed to him, on such terms and conditions, only after hearing the respondent.

7. Accordingly, the rent control revision is disposed of.

Sd/-