IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 206 of 2010() & CAVEAT OP 460/2010 ------------------------ RCA.21/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR. RCP.12/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT(RENT CONTROL COURT), NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- LAIJI.T.K., S/O.T.N.KRISHNADAS, AGED 50, THATTARUPARAMBIL, ALAMTHURUTHU KARA, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) SRI.P.V.PAULSON SMT.K.M.MINIMOL SRI.V.AJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT - PETITIONER --------------- SALILA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, MUTHEPADATHU VEETTIL, KUNNEKKAL KARA, VALAKAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. ADV. SRI C. VARGHESE KURIAKOSE (FOR THE CAVEATOR) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010 ALONG WITH RCR 208 & 209 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ R.C.R. 206, 208 & 209 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 27, 2010 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. These three revisions under sec.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are filed by the defeated tenants challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sec.11(3) of the Act which is confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. 2. The facts in brief are these: The respondent in RCR 206/2010 and 208/2010 are the same. She is the daughter of the respondent in RCR 209/2010. They are the landladies. They filed Rent Control Petitions Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 2008 before the Rent Control Court, North Paravur against these tenants for eviction under sec.11(3) of the Act. The bona fide need projected by the landladies was that the petitioner in RCP Nos.12 and 13 of 2008, Mrs. Salila wanted to start a tailoring unit and ready made dress shop in the building. The tenants/revision petitioners resisted the claim contending that the bona fide need put forward by the landladies is not a bona fide one, that it is only a ruse for evicting the tenants, that there are no other suitable buildings in that locality for the tenants to shift their business and that they are mainly depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop R.C.R. 206, 208 & 209 of 2010 2 room for their livelihood. 3. The landladies were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and the tenants in RCP 12 and 13 of 2008 were examined as RWs.1 and 2 before the Rent Control Court. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the landladies and Ext.C1 Commission Report was also marked. 4. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of evidence allowed all the Rent Control Petitions and passed a common order dated August 18, 2009 ordering eviction under sec.11(3) of the Act. On appeal the Appellate Authority confirmed the said order. The tenants have now come up in revision challenging the said judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority. 5. Sri John Numpeli, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, vehemently argued that the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Control Court went wrong in finding that the landladies require the petition schedule shop room for conducting business. Learned counsel for the respondents/landladies Sri C. Varghese Kuriakose, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the Rent Control Court as well as that of the Appellate Authority. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants and having gone through the evidence adduced by both parties and having perused the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that there is no ground for invocation of the R.C.R. 206, 208 & 209 of 2010 3 revisional jurisdiction under sec.20 of the Act. That being so, all the three revision petitions have to be dismissed and those are accordingly dismissed. 7. Sri John Numpeli, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, requested one year's time for surrendering the building. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the tenants are doing business in the said building, we feel that time till January 31, 2011 can be granted to the tenants to surrender the building on the following conditions: 1. The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful possession of the building on or before January 31, 2011. 2. The revision petitioners shall discharge the arrears of rent till this date within one month from today. 3. The rent for the future period shall be paid as and when the same becomes due. Both parties shall suffer their respective costs. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-