IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 RCRev..No. 5 of 2008() ---------------------- RCA.76/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.66/2005 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- CHELADIMEETHAL MADHAVAN, S/O. LATE APPU, AGED 74 YEARS, PALATH AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- K.MAQUBOL, S/O. NAFEESA BEEVI, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT FIROZ MAHAL, KACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.NO. 5 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J: Tenant is the revision petitioner. Landlord is the respondent. 2. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as the Act). The landlord is assisting his brother, who is running a foot wear shop. He has no separate income. The room was assigned to him by his mother. Now, he wants to start a business there. The neighbouring room belongs to his brother. Both the rooms can be used for starting the business in foot wear. So, the landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3). It was also contended that the room was kept closed for the last one year. Therefore, the ground under Rule 11(4)(v) was urged in support of that application. The tenant resisted that application contending that the shop room is being used by him to run a vegetable shop as well as a tea shop. The bonafide need urged is not genuine. He has expended substantial money for making the petition RCR.5/2008 . 2 scheduled room and the adjacent room suitable for his business. 3. The Rent Controller allowed the application under Section 11 (3) and the claim under Section 11(4)(v) was rejected. The tenant appealed against the findings under Section 11(3). There was no cross appeal. So, the finding of the Rent Controller under Section 11(4)(v) has become final as against the landlord. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that going by the depositions of the landlord, who was examined as PW1, it could be seen that he is doing business in foot wear in Moideen Pally road. Therefore, the need urged is not bonafide. But, a scrutiny of the evidence would show that it was the petitioner's brother, who is doing business at Moideen Pally road and the landlord was only assisting him. This is the consistent case of the landlord, which was upheld by the Rent Controller as well as by the appellate authority. It is a finding of fact, with which, this Court cannot interfere in a revision under Section 20 of the Act. 5. We notice that the appellate authority found that the tenant is not entitled to get protection of the second proviso to RCR.5/2008 . 3 Section 11(3). It is noticed by the appellate authority that the tenant has admitted that his main source of income is by doing business in the room bearing Door No.3/543, whereas the petition scheduled room is Room No.3/542. Therefore, based on the said admission of the tenant, the first limb of the 2nd proviso was found against the tenant. The appellate authority also noticed that the tenant while in the box admitted that he has not enquired about the availability of rooms in the locality. It is for the tenant to show that there are no suitable rooms available in the locality. The said burden has not been discharged. Therefore, finding on the second limb was also against the tenant. The above findings are findings on fact. This Court cannot interfere with the same. 6. In the result, we hold that there is nothing illegal, improper or irregular about the findings of the authorities below that the landlord is entitled to get eviction under Section 11(3). The revision petition , therefore, fails and it is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for some time to vacate the premises. Having regard to the facts of the case, he is granted six months' time to vacate the premises RCR.5/2008 . 4 on condition that he files an unconditional undertaking before the execution court in the form of an affidavit agreeing to vacate the petition scheduled room within six months from today. The undertaking in this regard shall be filed within three weeks from today. He shall also deposit arrears of rent, if any, and also pay monthly rent from time to time till the scheduled room is vacated. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl RCR.5/2008 . 5