IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 373 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.28/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.25/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- KAKKAPOYIL SUDHAKARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRARICHAN, OIL MERCHANT, NEAR CANARA BANK, OPP.MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT - PETITIONER --------------- MARIYAKUTTY UMMA, D/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI AGED 62 YEARS, `ROSA MAHAL', PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, KOVILKANTY DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009 ALONG WITH RCR NO. 374 OF 2005 & RCR NO. 376 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- R.C.R. 373, 374 & 376 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 27, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. All the above Rent Control Revisions are filed by defeated tenants challenging the order of Rent Control Court ordering eviction under sec.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. RCR 373/05 is filed against the order in RCP 25/03 of Rent Controller (Munsiff Court, Koyilandy) dated 4.12.2003 which was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge, Kozhikode) in RCA 28/2004 by judgment dated 24.6.2005. RCR 374/05 is filed against the order in RCP 24/03 of Rent Controller (Munsiff Court, Koyilandy) dated 4.12.2003 which was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge, Kozhikode) in RCA 29/2004 by judgment dated 24.6.2005. RCR 376/05 is filed against the order in RCP 23/03 of Rent Controller (Munsiff Court, Koyilandy) dated 4.12.2003 which was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge, Kozhikode) R.C.R. 373, 374 & 376 OF 2005 2 in RCA 30/2004 by judgment dated 24.6.2005. 2. The respondent in all these three revision petitions filed RCP 23/2005 against the revision petitioner in RCR 376/05 and also RCP 24/2003 and RCP 25/2003 against the revision petitioners in RCR 374/05 and RCR 373/05 respectively claiming eviction under sec.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act on the allegation that the tenants have kept the rent in arrears from December 31, 1997 onwards and that the landlady bona fide needs the petition schedule shop rooms for her son to start cement business. RCPs. 23/2003 and 24/2003 were disposed of by a common order while RCP 25/2003 was disposed of by a separate order. In RCP 23/2003 the husband of the landlady was examined as PW.1 and the tenant was examined as RW.1. On the side of the landlady Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. In RCP 24/2003 on the side of the landlady Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. In RCP 25/2003 the husband of the landlady was examined as PW.1 and the tenant as RW1. On the side of the landlady Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. 3. On an appreciation of evidence the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under sec.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act holding that the tenants have kept the rent in arrears and that the R.C.R. 373, 374 & 376 OF 2005 3 landlady bona fide required the petition schedule shop room for her son to conduct business. The tenants challenged the said order by filing separate appeals and the Appellate Authority confirmed the said finding of the Rent Control Court. Now the tenants have come up in revision. 4. Smt.Parvathi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/tenants argued that the landlady has other building in her possession and that therefore the bona fide need claimed by her is not genuine. This was disputed by Sri Mohammed Nias, learned counsel for the landlady. 5. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the landlady as well as the tenants before the Rent Control Court and the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the judgments of the Appellate Authority. We find no special reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under sec.20 of the Act. That being so, all the three revision petitions are to be dismissed. 6. Smt.Parvathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners R.C.R. 373, 374 & 376 OF 2005 4 requested for one year time to vacate the premises. Taking into consideration the fact that the revision petitioners are conducting very small business in the petition schedule shop rooms, we feel that time till 31.1.2010 can be granted to the revision petitioners to vacate the premises on the following conditions:- 1. The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit within one month from this date before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, undertaking to surrender possession of the petition schedule building on or before 31.1.2010. On receipt of the said affidavit, delivery shall be deferred till 1.2.2010. 2. The revision petitioners shall pay rent up-to-date within one month from this date and future rent as and when the same falls due, failing which the revision petitioners will not be entitled to the benefit of the time granted by this Court. In the result, all the three revision petitions are dismissed with the above directions. The parties shall suffer their own costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-