IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 75 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.47/2004 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.4/1992 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... REVISION PETITIONR/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------- D.VIJAYAN, KUNNATHUMAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ARASUPARAMBUMURI, NEDUMANGADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDETS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNAN NAIR, MEKKONATHU VEEDU, VETTAMPALLY MURI, ANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. 2. THRIVIKRAMAN PILLAI VIJAYA KUMAR, MEKKONATHU VEEDU, VETTAMPALLY MURI, ANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-12-2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. 739 OF 2009 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. 3-12-2010 SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 75 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order of eviction concurrently passed on the ground under Section 11(4)(iv) and the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority for first time on the grounds of arrears of rent and Section 11(4)(iii). This litigation has had a chequered career and as the learned Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have correctly narrated the facts in their respective orders it is not necessary for us to narrate it again. 2. In this revision under Section 20 the revision petitioner tenant has raised various grounds assailing the eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority. Sri. R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has RCR. 75/09 -2- addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. All the arguments of Mr. Kalkura were very stiffly opposed by Mr.G.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We have also gone through the order passed by this Court in RCR. No. 167 of 2003 filed by the revision petitioner in an earlier stage of the same proceeding, an order to which one among us, Pius C. Kuriakose, J. was also party. 3. The short question which arises before us in this revision is whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 so as to warrant interference with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. It is very clear to our mind that the RCR. 75/09 -3- above question can be answered only in favour of the respondents landlords. On examining the judgment of the Appellate Authority we find that the findings entered therein regarding the existence of the eviction ground under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(iv) are all findings founded on evidence. The findings entered in the context of the ground under Section 11(4)(iv) - regarding the physical and social condition of the building, regarding the financial ability of the landlord to carry out the reconstruction, regarding the availability of a valid plan and licence with the landlord and also to the effect that the proposal is not a ruse are supported by legal evidence available on record. The same is the position regarding the ground under Section 11 (4)(iii). We notice that the Rent Control Court declined eviction order on that ground on the reason that at the time when RCP came up for adjudication the tenant had parted RCR. 75/09 -4- with ownership and possession of the building. The learned Appellate Authority rightly interfered with that finding and held that once the tenant entails liability under section 11(4) (3) he cannot get himself absolved of the liability by parting with ownership and possession of the building. The same is the position regarding the ground under Section 11(2)(b). The learned Rent Control Court declined eviction on that ground on the reason that subsequent to the commencement of the RCP, the entire arrears of rent was deposited. The approach of the learned Rent Control Court was held to be not proper rightly by the learned Appellate Authority. In a case under Section 11(2)(b) the question to be considered is whether the tenant has deposited the arrears of rent within the statutory period mentioned in the notice under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b). Evidently it was not so done by the tenant. The learned Appellate RCR. 75/09 -5- Authority was perfectly justified in ordering eviction on the ground under section 11((2)(b). In short, we don't find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find it has been found concurrently by both the authorities that the tenant is not entitled to the immunity from eviction provided under Section 11(11). The above finding is quite correct. 4. Mr. R.S.Kalkura would make a last submission in the facts and circumstances attending on this case for grant of 18 months time for surrender of the building on the reason that the petitioner is conducting an educational institution. The above request is very stiffly opposed by Mr. G. Ram Mohan. He pointed out that the rent control proceedings commenced way back in 1992. Despite the stiffness of the opposition from the side of Mr.Ram Mohan, we feel that on the totality of the circumstances which RCR. 75/09 -6- attend on this case, there is justification for granting time till 30th November 2011 on certain conditions. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the RCR is dismissed. The eviction orders passed by the Appellate Authority are confirmed. The execution court is directed to keep in abeyance the proceedings for execution till 30-11- 2011 subject to the following conditions. The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking as follows: He shall pay the entire arrears of rent due to the respondent including the rent payable at the rate re-fixed by this Court in earlier proceedings within six weeks from today. He will continue to pay occupational charges at the re-fixed rate properly and regularly till he gives actual surrender to the landlord. If the revision petitioner wants to RCR. 75/09 -7- get the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) formally vacated, he can do so by making requisite deposit/payment and filing application within a period of six weeks from today. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time till 30-11-2011 only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings in the affidavit. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ksv/4/12/10