IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 RCRev..No. 370 of 2007() ------------------------ RCA.192/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY RCP.53/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- KINAKKOOL KUNNUMPRATH ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.MUHAMMED, PERUVALATHPARAMBA, IRIKKUR AMSOM, P.O, PERUVALATHPARAMBA KANNUR, PIN:670 593. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- KELOTH SAVITHA W/O.T.O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, VAYAKKARA DESOM, P.O.KAITHAPRAM,(VIA) SREEKANDAPURAM 670 631 KANNUR DIST. BY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ R.C.R.NO: 370 OF 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st January, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Land lady filed the rent control petition under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The land lady did not press the ground under Section 11(2)(b). 2. The land lady claimed the petition schedule building for her occupation so that she can run a bakery and stationery business there. The room adjacent to the petition schedule room is also occupied by a tenant. She has also moved for eviction of the said tenant under the provisions of the Act for the very same purpose. Thus two rooms are required by her to run her business. She is unemployed and she has no other source of income and therefore she proposes to start business. According to her the tenant is not depending on the income from the tenanted premises for his livelihood. There are other suitable rooms in the locality to shift his business. The tenant resisted the application contending that the need alleged is only a ruse to evict him. The land lady belongs RCR 370/07 2 to a very affluent family and therefore she does not require to run any business. She has no experience in the field also. From the side of the land lady Exts.A1 to A3 were marked and the land lady got herself examined as P.W.1. From the side of the tenant he was examined as R.W.1. The Rent Controller considered the evidence and allowed the application under Section 11(3) of the Act. It was found that the need of the land lady is bonafide. It was also held that tenant is not entitled to protection of any of the provisos of Section 11(3). The tenant appealed. The appellate authority upheld the findings of the Rent Controller. Hence this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the land lady belongs to an affluent family, it is unnecessary for her to start any business. We notice that the said contention has been considered by both the courts. Since she is an unemployed person and she wants to earn some income, even if she belongs to an affluent family the said need urged by the land lady has to be held as a bonafide one. We find nothing illegal or improper with the finding of the authorities below on this point. Secondly RCR 370/07 3 counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the tenant is entitled to the protection under the first proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. There are two vacant rooms in possession of the land lady. Therefore she could start the business there. It is not in dispute that two vacant rooms are available in the first floor of the building. The land lady contended that the same is not suitable for starting a bakery or stationery business. The authorities below also noticed that while in the box the tenant also admitted that he would not prefer to do any business in the upstairs. So, the authorities below held that the said rooms are not suitable for running the proposed business of the land lady. Therefore it was held that the tenant is not entitled to protection under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. We find that the said finding cannot be described as a perverse finding warranting interference by this Court. No other point was urged. In the result the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays some time to vacate the premises. Having regard to the facts of RCR 370/07 4 the case the petitioner is granted six month's time from today on condition that he files an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the executing court undertaking to vacate the premises within six months from today. This undertaking shall be filed within three weeks from today. The arrears of rent if any remaining unpaid shall also be deposited before the executing court within one month from today. The monthly rent due from time to time shall also be paid till the room is vacated by the petitioner. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: