IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 RCRev..No. 220 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.35/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.19/2005 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PATTAMBI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- K.V.MOHAMMEDUNNI, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, K.M. ELECTRICALS, KODAKKAT HOUSE, KOLLANUR DESOM,KAPPUR AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- ABDUL HAMEED, S/O. MOHAMMED MANKADAVATH HOUSE,KOLLANUR AMSOM, KAPPUR DESOM P.O. ERAVAKKAD, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, ALONG WITH RCR 221/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN IA NO.1985/08 IN RCR 220/2008 DISMISSED. 2/9/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. Nos.220 & 221 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein who is the landlord of the tenanted premises, sought eviction of the tenants by filing separate Rent Control Petitions, viz. R.C.P.Nos.19/2005 and 21/2005 on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) and also under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. This was resisted and based on the evidence adduced, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction only under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenants preferred appeals and the appellate court also confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court in both the cases. Hence, separate revisions are filed. 2. Common contentions are raised and the landlord is also the same in both the cases and both the cases and common evidence adduced by the landlord. Hence, we dispose of both the revisions by this common order as follows: 3. Shri P.N.K. Achan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenants contended that the finding of the court below regarding bonafides as RCR Nos.220 & 221/2008 -2- pleaded by the landlord is not correct. He also contended that the tenants have successfully proved that they are entitled for the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. However, after hearing the arguments elaborately, we are not satisfied with the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel. At this stage, he sought permission to withdraw his contentions and pleaded for a larger time to be granted in favour of his clients for vacating the premises. He pleaded that a period of one year may be granted for giving vacant possession of the premises. The respondent has entered on caveat. 4. We heard both sides. 5. Since the petitioners seek to withdraw their contentions and seek for a larger time and considering the fact that the tenants are occupying the premises and doing business and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, we grant the tenants a period of one year to vacate the premises and permit the revision petitions to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed. Execution of the order of eviction will stand deferred till the time granted expires on the following conditions: i) The petitioner in the respective revision petition shall file an RCR Nos.220 & 221/2008 -3- undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Rent Control Court/Execution Court agreeing to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises on or before 2.9.2009 and such undertaking shall be given within a period of three weeks from today. He shall also deposit the entire arrears of rent, if any, within the aforesaid period of three weeks from today; ii) He shall not induct any third party into the premises; and iii) He shall continue to pay the amount equivalent to the monthly rent for use and occupation, until vacant possession of the premises is given to the landlord. In case of failure to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below will forthwith become enforceable. We also direct that on the conditions being complied with as aforesaid by the tenant, before handing over delivery of the property to the landlord, the landlord shall deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- in R.C.P.No.19/2005 being the security deposit amount to be refunded to the tenant therein. Likewise, an amount of Rs.10,000/- being the security deposit shall be deposited in R.C.P.No.21/2005 to be paid over to the tenant RCR Nos.220 & 221/2008 -4- in that case. The revision petitions are disposed of as above. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/