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 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 RCRev..No. 280 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.73/2004 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.2/2003 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH, SON OF THOMAS, AGED 58, ASHA METAL STORE, DIVYA BUILDINGS, N.H.BYEPASS, VYTTILA.P.O, KOCHI-19. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SMT.U.DEVI, W/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI, AGED 71, DIVYA, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR. 2. M/S.K.P.LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI, AGED 47, DIVYA, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR. 3. K.P.NARAYANAN, S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI AGED 42, DIVYA, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.SAVIO JOY FOR R1 TO 3 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA.NO.2059/2006 IN R.C.R.NO.280/2006 -------------------------- Dismissed Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. 18/11/2008 Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. True Copy P.S. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 280 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was ordered under Section 11(3) on the ground of bona fide need of the son of the first petitioner in the rent control petition. It was alleged that he is an Electrical Engineer and after the death of the father, he resigned his job and thus, he had no avocation in life and he wanted to start a business. This plea of bona fide need was found proved by the Rent Control Court and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Challenging the said orders passed by the court below, that this revision is filed. 2. This revision petition was filed as early as in 2006 and more than two years have elapsed. The revision petitioner/tenant is still continuing in possession. After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner sought to withdraw the contention raised in this revision petition; however, prayed that the revision petitioner be given a R.C.R. 280/2006 :2: reasonable time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. 3. The tenant is doing a textile business in the tenanted premises. True, the tenant is facing with an order of eviction and it would have alerted him to seek alternate accommodation. However, considering the fact that the revision petitioner/tenant is withdrawing all the contentions and considering the fact that he is continuing to do the business in the petition schedule premises, we are persuaded to grant him some time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, will not be executed for a period of six months from today; however, on condition that the revision petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the executing court, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises on or before 18.5.2009 along with the arrears of rent, if any, within a period of three weeks from today, that he shall pay the amount equivalent to rent towards use and occupation of the premises until vacant possession is surrendered and that he shall not induct any third parties into the possession of the premises. If any one of the R.C.R. 280/2006 :3: aforesaid condition is flouted, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below will forthwith become enforceable. Subject to the above. the revision petition is dismissed . P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-