IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 1425 of 1999(G) ----------------------- RCA.19/1997 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.51/1995 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------- KANDAMPALATH KUNHIKUTTAN VAIDYAR S/O UNNIPERAVAN, RESIDING AT EDAKKAD AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI DESOM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS --------------- 1. PAVANGADU RAVEENDRAN, S/O CHEERUKANDAN ( EXPIRED) 2. SISTER GOURI 3. SISTER SUGATHA 4. SISTER VASANTHA 5. BROTHER SURENDRAN 6. BROTHER SOUMYENDRAN 7. SISTER JAYANTHI All are residing at Kacheri amsom and desom of Kozhikode Taluk CRP.NO.1425/1999 ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8. MANORAMA, W/O RAVEENDRAN KACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE 9. SHUBA, D/O P.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING -DO- 10. ANIL KUMAR, S/O P.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING -DO- 11. SHARMILA, D/O P.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING -DO- 12. BEENA, D/O P.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING -DO- Legal heirs of the deceased first respondent impleaded as additional respondents vide order dated 25-9-07 in I.A.No.2285/2007 BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No. 1425 OF 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control)Act , but declined to grant eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding and ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Now the tenant has come up in revision. 2. The revision respondents filed RCP before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act alleging that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears and that the deceased first revision respondent's son who is now impleaded as 10th revision respondent requires the petition schedule room to start a type writing institute, that there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality to conduct the said business, that the tenant is not depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business conducted CRP.No.1425/1999 2 in the petition schedule building. 3. The tenant contested the claim contending that the bonafide need put forward by the landlords is not genuine and that he is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the petition schedule building. Before the Rent Control Court, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the landlords. On the side of the tenant, he was examined as RW1. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of evidence ordered eviction under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act holding that there are arrears of rent. His claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was rejected by the Rent Control Court on the ground that PW1 during cross examination admitted that in 1982 he issued a notice to the tenant informing him about the same bonafide need for PW2, his son, that in 1989 PW1 rented out another shop room to another tenant, that PW1 has filed R.C.P.No.47/1994 seeking eviction against another tenant Chandran stating the same bonafide need and that PW2 did not produce any certificates to show that he has nay qualification in type writing. On an appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Authority reversed the said CRP.No.1425/1999 3 finding on the ground that PW2 is now aged only 31 and that in 1982 he would be aged 15 only and that therefore the version of PW1 that in 1982 PW1 issued notice to the tenant is only an inadvertent mistake on his part, that the copy of the order of R.C.P.No.47/94 is not produced to show that his claim for bonafide need was rejected and that non production of certificate of PW2 is not a ground for denying the relief to the landlord and held that the bonafide need put forward by the landlord is genuine and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the first and second provisos to Sub Section 3 of Section 11 of the Act and ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Now the tenant has come up in revision. 4. Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant argued that the tenant is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room and that the landlords have let out some other buildings in their possession and that therefore the need put forward by the landlords is not genuine. 5. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both CRP.No.1425/1999 4 parties before the Rent Control Court, the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no reason to interfere with the findings entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the order of the Rent Control Court. We find no irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the judgment of the Appellate Authority. That being so, the revision petition has to be dismissed. 6. Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for two year's time to vacate the premises. Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, learned counsel for the respondents opposed this request. Taking into account the fact that the tenant is conducting a Vydyasala and he is aged about 80 years, we feel that time upto 31/07/2010 can be granted to vacate the petition schedule building on the following conditions : 1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within three weeks from this date agreeing to surrender possession of the building on or before 31/07/2010. On receipt of such an affidavit, the Rent Control CRP.No.1425/1999 5 Court or the Execution Court as the case may be shall defer the delivery to August 1, 2010. 2) The revision petitioner shall pay arrears of rent upto date within one month from this date and future rent as and when the same falls due. If the tenant fails to file an affidavit as mentioned above or fails to pay rent due, he will not be entitled to the benefit of time granted by this court. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with the above directions. No order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. CRP.No.1425/1999 6