IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 137 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.28/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELATE AUTHORITY , THALASSERY RCP.172/2004 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR .................... REVN.PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- MARAKKATH LAKSHMI (DIED) 1. T.HARIDAS, AGED 64 YEARS, "HARISMITHAM", PANHIKKAYIL, CHALAD, KANNUR-14. 2. T.SAVITHRI, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. A.P.BALAKRISHNAN, "SARITHA NIVAS", THOTTADA, KANNUR. 3. T.NALINI, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. P.V.MADHAVAN, ADVOCATE, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR. 4. T.PUSHPA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.NARAYANAN, "PUSHPA", KARIKKANKULAM, PAPPINISSERI WEST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. T.PAVITHRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, "SNEHATHEERTHAM", EDACHOVVA, KANNUR-5. 6. T.SAJITH, AGED 46, "KRISHNAKRIPA", PATTYAM NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, KANNUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ E.V.ABDUL HAMEED HAJI, S/O. P.S. MOIDEENKUNHI HAJI, AGED 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT HAFSAS, MUZHATHADAM, KANNUR. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.137 of OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The legal heirs of a deceased tenant challenge in this revision under Section 20 the order of eviction concurrently passed against the deceased tenant on the ground under Sections 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (iii) of Act 2 of 1965. We notice on a scanning of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final authority on facts, that the finding that the tenant has used the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently was entered by the statutory authorities appreciating the reports submitted by an advocate commissioner on the basis of a local inspection to which the original tenant did not file any objections even. As for the eviction ground passed under Section 11 (4)(iii), we notice that the finding that the tenant has acquired possession of other buildings, which are reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or village is entered on the basis of RCR.No.137/2010 2 evidence including the admission of the tenant that apart from the petition schedule building, he has possession of at least four buildings including three buildings belonging to the very same landlord. In fact, the landlord's case was that there were two more buildings in the possession of the tenant. As regards those buildings, the contention of the tenant was that they are in the possession of his son T.Pavithran, who was in fact examined as RW1 on behalf of the tenant. It is trite by various decisions including the judgment of this Court in Ahammed v. Krishnalal (2005 (3) KLT 1004) that when it is shown that the tenant is in possession of other buildings in the same city, town or village, it is for the tenant to adduce cogent evidence and substantiate his defence that those buildings are not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. In the instant case no serious endevour is made by the tenant to discharge the burden which is cast upon him. Hence, we find that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 tainting the orders of eviction concurrently passed under Section 11(4)(ii) and 11 (4) (iii). RCR.No.137/2010 3 2. As a last plea, Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal, learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought for one year's time to vacate the premises. According to Mr.Kaimal, the petition schedule building is the main business place of the revision petitioner and if they are evicted from there, they will be put to much hardship as locating another suitable premises will not be easy. 3. Normally this Court will not be inclined to grant time to the tenant who is liable to be evicted under Section 11 (4) (iii) since such a tenant, in our view, is more landlord like than the landlord himself. However, in deference to the very persuasive request of Sri.Kaimal, we feel that time can be granted till 28/2/2011 subject to certain conditions. 4. The result of the above discussion is as follows; The revision is dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Act . The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the building in question till 28/2/2011 subject to the following conditions; Sri.T.Haridas, the first revision petitioner representing himself and all other revision RCR.No.137/2010 4 petitioners will file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent on or before 28/2/2011. It will be undertaken through the same affidavit that they will discharge arrears of rent , if any due, within one month and will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate of Rs.600/- per month till such time as they give surrender of the building. We make it clear that unless the affidavit as directed above is filed, the revision petitioners/tenants will not be entitled for the benefit of time granted as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk