IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 158 of 2009() ------------------------ ( RCA.42/2005 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM RCP.39/2004 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONER:APPELLANT/CR.PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------- G.P.CHANDRAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, UTHRADAM, T.C.10/603, OPPOSITE PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SUBHASH BABU, S/O.K.MADHAVAN NAIR, JANAKI SADANAM, KERALATHITHYAPURAM, POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.158 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision and he challenges the order of eviction passed concurrently under sub section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The need projected by the landlord was that the petition schedule building is required for occupation of his dependent wife for carrying on business in finance. Both the landlord and the needy wife were examined as Pws 1 and 2. The authorities below were inspired by the evidence of the landlord and wife and held that the need is bona fide. The tenant claimed protection of both the provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. The allegation of the tenant was that the landlord is in vacant possession of two rooms situated on either sides of the petition schedule building. The landlord's contention was that, that rooms do not belong to him absolutely, he is only a co-owner. Following the judgment of this court in Asher v. Hassankutty Hajee (2004 (2) KLT 446), the authorities below held that since the landlord was not having absolute ownership over the vacant RCR.No.158/2009 2 rooms, the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 will not apply. As for the benefit of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 claimed by the tenant, it was held that the tenant has not succeeded in establishing that he satisfies either of the ingredients of that proviso. 2. Even though Sri.M.Srekumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us very strenuously and persuasively, having gone through the impugned judgment, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under section 20, since we find that the factual findings concurrently entered by the authorities below are founded on evidence. We are also in agreement with the legal principles laid down by this court in Asher v. Hassankutty Hajee (supra) and we hold that since the vacant rooms pointed out by the tenant do not belong to the landlord absolutely first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 will not have any application. The finding that the tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that he satisfies either of the ingredients to sub section (3) of Section 11 is finding based on evidence. 3. As his last submission, Sri.M.Sreekumar, sought for RCR.No.158/2009 3 one year's time to vacate the premises. We do not think that we will be justified in granting so much of time. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances attending on this case, we are inclined to grant time till 31/3/2010 subject to certain conditions. 3. The result is as follows; The RCR is dismissed. However, the Execution Court is directed not to order or effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the landlord till 31/3/2009 subject to the following condition; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent on or before 23/3/2010 and that he will discharge the arrears of rent, if any, and will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rates till he makes actual surrender. RCR.No.158/2009 4 It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk