IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 RCRev..No. 312 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.31/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM OPBRC.1/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER/TENANT: -------------------------------------------------------- BHASKARAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, EDACKATTIL HOUSE, PALA KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/LAND-LORD: ----------------------------------------------- M.A.THOMAS, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 64 YEARS, MOOZHIYIL HOUSE, LALAM KARA & VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 312 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 O R D E R PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. This revision petition is directed against the order of eviction concurrently passed under Section 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of the Rent Control Court, Pala and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam. Sri.George Mathew, the learned counsel for the review petitioner addressed us extensively. The respondent had lodged a caveat and we have heard the learned counsel for the caveator also. 2. Having considered the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority as well as the submissions addressed at the bar, we are of the view that there is no warrant for interfering with the findings of the courts below. In fact, learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the finding that the appellant revision petitioner is liable to be evicted under Section 11(2) (b) is almost unassailable. As for the eviction order under Section 11(3), the finding is that the land R.C.R..No.312/2008 2 lord respondent needs building bona fide so that his wife PW2 can conduct a ladies store thereon. The point, which was highlighted before us by Sri.George Mathew, was that the building in question is a petty bunk shop and that the respondent will not be able to conduct a ladies store attractively and profitably in that shop. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner has no say in this matter and it is for the respondent and his wife to decide as to the manner in which they should conduct the business. We do not find any infirmity about the findings of the courts below regarding the bona fides of the need and the claim and in having accepted the case of the respondent that the respondent;s wife wants to start business in a small scale in the scheduled room which is of course a small one. Having regard to the contours of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, we do not find any illegality or infirmity for warranting interference. Having regard to the special circumstances attending on this case, we are inclined to grant six months time to the revision petitioner for surrendering peaceful possession of the room in question to the respondent on condition that the revision petitioner will pay to R.C.R..No.312/2008 3 the respondent within two months from today the entire arrears of rent which are fallen due in respect of the building together with interest at the statutory rate to the respondent directly and will continue to pay the rent which fall in due subsequently till the date of surrender. The execution proceedings will stand put off by six months on condition that the revision petitioner files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the execution court incorporating the above condition. The affidavit shall be filed within three weeks from today. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE dpk