IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 4 of 2011 ------------------------ RCA.13/2010 of ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM RCP.3/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT, VAIKOM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- U. J. VARGHESE, S/O JOSEPH, NOW RESIDING AT 'UNNIYADAM' HOUSE, WARD – III, THALAYOLAPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAYAR VILLAGE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., FROM UNNIYADATHU HOUSE, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. ANANDAVALLY AMMA, D/O DEVAKI AMMA, NOW R/A LANE 3, SECTOR – 17, R.H.4, PLOT – 55, NADANVAN C.H.S NERULE, NAVI MUMBAI, FROM KANIYAMPADICKAL, THALAYOLAPARAMBU KARA, VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK – 686141. RCR.4/11 -2- 2. ARUN KUMAR, NOW R/A KHARGAR SECTOR 14, REGHUNADU VIHAR 1330, NAVI MUMBAI, FROM SREEBHAVAN (KANIYAMPADICKAL), THALAYOLAPARAMBU KARA, VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, REP. BY HIS AGENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ANANDAVALLY AMMA, RESIDING AT – DO- PIN – 686141. CAVEATOR – SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.4 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 ORDER Balakrishnan, J The order under challenge which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, was passed by the Rent Control Court on 18/07/09. It is stated that a compromise was entered into between the parties as per which one and a half years time was agreed to be given to the tenant to surrender the petition schedule building. But the Rent Control Court did not accept the compromise petition filed in that case but considered the terms of the compromise while considering the matter on merits. The prayer for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was rejected but eviction was granted under Section 11(3). The revision petitioner contends that since there was a compromise entered into between himself and the landladies as per which he was agreed to be given one R. C. R. No.4 of 2011 -2- and a half years time, (though that was not accepted by the Rent Control Court), he was under the impression that much time would be given by the Rent Controller and that the landladies will not file execution petition for getting delivery of the building before the expiry of one and half years. But thereafter he came to know that the petition was filed for getting delivery of the building. The learned counsel submits that he did not file appeal against the order passed under Section 11(3) earlier in view of the compromise entered into between himself and the landladies. Later, he filed appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 275 days in filing the appeal. That was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Now the only request made by the revision petitioner is to grant seven months' further time to vacate the premises. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we are inclined to grant time till 14/08/11 on condition that he should file an affidavit within two weeks from today undertaking that he will surrender R. C. R. No.4 of 2011 -3- vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landladies on or before 14/08/11 and that he will pay occupational charges at the current rent rate as and when the same falls due. The revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time and honours the undertakings contained therein. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-