K.Harilal, J.

This Revision Petition has been filed against

order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) and

11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act ('the Act for short) by the Rent Control Court,

Ernakulam in R.C.P. No. 76 of 2014. The Rent Control

Appellate Authority, Ernakulam in RCA No. 2 of 2018

affirmed the said order and dismissed the appeal.

2. The landlord-tenant relationship and the

occupation of a part of the building by the petitioner/

landlord are not disputed. According to the petitioner,

he is in bona fide need of some more additional space,

to accommodate the security people and for installing

a CC TV camera, as the local authority is insisting him

to install the CC TV Camera. The existing area

3

outstanding in the possession of the petitioner at

present is inadequate for accommodating sufficient

number of security personnel. That apart, it is also

averred that the rent was in arrear from July, 2013

onwards. Though notice had been issued demanding

payment of arrears of rent, no amount was paid by the

respondent towards the arrears of rent. On the

aforesaid averment, the petitioner has sought for an

order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(8) of

the Act.

3. The respondent resisted the claim for

eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act, contending

that the petitioner is in possession of sufficient space

for accommodating their security personnel. There is

one security person at a time and hence, no additional

space is required. So, the need projected in the

petition is nothing but a ruse for eviction only. The

respondent is not in occupation of any room other than

4

the petition schedule building as alleged by the

petitioner. The respondent is doing travel agency

business in the petition schedule building to eke out his

livelihood and if he is evicted from the petition

schedule building, he will be put to irreparable injury

and great hardship.

4. On the rival pleadings, both parties

adduced evidence and after considering the evidence

on record, the courts below have concurrently found

that the need for additional accommodation projected

in the petition is bona fide and the balance of

convenience stands in favour of the petitioner as the

injury that may be caused to the respondent would not

outweigh the advantage to the petitioner. Further, it

was found that the rent was in arrears from July, 2013

onwards. The petitioner is entitled to get an order of

eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act also. The

legality and propriety of the aforesaid finding is under

5

challenge in this revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the courts below have failed to

appreciate the availability of sufficient space in the

hands of the petitioner at present. According to the

respondent/ tenant, the petitioner is in possession of

one more room in between the present security room

and the schedule room. Therefore, the petitioner

would have accommodated additional security

personnel in that room. Further, it is contended that

the petitioner has already installed the CCTV camera.

So, no additional space is required for the same.

7. At the outset, we must remained ourselves

the limited scope and extent of interference, under

Section 20 of the Act. It is needless to say the extent

of interference under revisional jurisdiction is confined

6

legality, propriety and regularity of the findings of the

courts below and this Court cannot re-appreciate the

factual findings, unless the findings of the courts below

are perverse or vitiated by non-consideration of

material evidence.

8. In the above view and the submission at

the bar, the sole question that arises for consideration

in this revision petition is whether the findings of the

courts below that the need for additional

accommodation is bona fide and the comparative

hardship is i