IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 90 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.16/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY MANJERI RCP.2/2008 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PONNANI .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT-TENANT --------------------------------------------------------------- CHELLITHARAYIL KESAVAN, S/O. APPUKUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS, ELITE TAILORING, KUTTIKKADU, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER-LANDLORD --------------------------------------------- MAKKORAM VEETTIL JAYARAJAN, S/O. KUNHIKKARI, AGED 45 YEARS, PUNNATHIRUTHI DESOM, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 90 of 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. Challenge in this revision is the order of eviction concurrently passed by the courts below under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The need projected by the respondent/landlord herein is that he wants to accommodate his son PW2 to start a snack bar cum coffee shop in the petition schedule building. The claim was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that PW2 is studying for M.Sc. Microbiology and so it is quite unlikely that PW2 would start a snack bar cum coffee shop in the petition schedule building. It is stated that the revision petitioner has been doing his tailoring work for the last about 40 years. It is also contended that this petition schedule room is not suitable for starting snacks bar cum coffee shop. 2. It was found by the Rent Control Appellate Authority that PW1, the landlord, is conducting hotel business in a building situated on the either side of the road and that the RCR.No.90/2011 2 articles required for snack bar cum coffee shop can be prepared from one of the rooms situated in that hotel building and that the petition schedule building can be used for sale of those items. The Rent Control Court considered the evidence given by PWs1 and 2 and found that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. On a reappraisal of the evidence , the learned Appellate Authority also concurred with that view. 3. In this revisional jurisdiction this court cannot reappraise the evidence to take a different conclusion. The tenant could not prove that there are no other building available in the locality for obtaining on lease for shifting his tailoring work. Since both the ingredients required for claiming protection under the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 are to be substantiated and as the tenant failed to do so the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3). It was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the courts below. Hence this revision is dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a fervent appeal that at least one year time may be granted to the RCR.No.90/2011 3 revision petitioner to vacate the petition schedule building. Considering all the aspects, we are inclined to grant to the revision petitioner time till 31/12/2011 to vacate the petition schedule building subject to the following conditions; The Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today undertaking to surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlord on or before 31/12/2011 and undertaking further that he would discharge entire arrears of rent if any within one month from today and will also continue to pay occupation charges at the current rent rate till actual surrender of the building. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted above only if he files affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk