IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 211 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.138/2002 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY RCP.92/2000 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- PANAYAN RAJAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, SARADA VIHAR, P.O.IRIVERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ HASSAN KURIKKALAKATH SHAHINA, D/O. MUSTHAFA, AGE NOT KNOWN, SHAREENA'S ANAYIDUCK, KANNUR, REP. BY P.A.HOLDER C.P.KUNHALI, S/O. MOOSA, AGED 49, BEEVI MANZIL, MAYANMUKKU, P.O.KANHIRODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1434 0F 2006 IN R.C.R.NO.211 OF 2006 DISMISSED. 7.2.2011 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.C.R No.211 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011 Order Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against the revision petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide need for own occupation. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We are convinced that the findings concurrently entered by the two statutory authorities regarding the existence of the grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide need of own occupation are founded on the legal evidence available on record. The learned Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts has made a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence and has endorsed the findings of the Rent Control Court giving very strong reasons. It is noticed that the learned Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court that the need projected by the RCR 211/06 2 landlord under Section 11(3) (which was in fact the need of none other than P.W.1) is a bonafide one. We find that the implications of the two provisos, the first and second to sub- section (3) of Section 11 have also been correctly considered by the Appellate Authority keeping in mind judicial precedents which govern the issue. In short, we do not find any irregularity, impropriety or illegality as envisaged by Section 20 about the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Revision fails and the same will stand dismissed. However, we direct the execution court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 30.8.2011 subject to the following conditions: 1. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to surrender the building peacefully to the respondent on or before 30.8.2011. 2. Through the same affidavit, he should also undertake to discharge the arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Court to be due from him within one month and to pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate till he surrenders the building. 3. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the RCR 211/06 3 benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings given by him. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd