IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 293 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.19/2008 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TRIVANDRUM RCP.70/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT.,TRIVANDRUM .................. REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR, S/O.VIDYADHARAN, RESIDING AT PRASANTH BHAVAN, MUKKOLA, NETTAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- JOHN PHILIP, S/O.M.J.PHILIP, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.28, M.G.NAGAR, VAZHAYILA, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 3537/2009 IN R.C.R. NO. 293/2009 DISMISSED 8/12/2009 SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 293 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision, being aggrieved by the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The need projected by the respondent landlord, who is a diploma holder in Automobile Engineering, wanted to occupy the building in question for the conduct of business in automobile spare parts. Though the bona fides of the claim was very stiffly opposed by the revision petitioner, the Rent Control Court after enquiry, concluded that the need projected by the respondent was a bona fide one and that he was entitled to eviction since the Rent Control Petition was not liable to fail by virtue of either of the provisions to sub section (3) of Section 11. Another ground which had been invoked was the ground of arrears of rent. Though the quantification regarding the arrears of rent was disputed, the Rent Control Court on enquiry found that, as RCR.No.293/2009 2 alleged, the rent was in arrears. However, that court accepted the contention of the revision petitioner that at the time of entrustment of the building, he had paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent as advance as per Ext.A1. The Rent Control Court found that the arrears of rent quantified was lesser than the sum of advance paid by the revision petitioner and, accordingly, declined order of eviction under Section 11 (2) (b). The above finding has become final. 2. Even though Sri.Dinesh M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner assailed findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under sub section (3) of Section 11 on the basis of the various grounds raised in the Memorandum of Revision, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority by the parameters applicable to exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we are of the view that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about those findings for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. The findings are founded on evidence which was actually available on record. The revision necessarily has to fail. However, the submissions of Sri.Dinesh that some provision has to be made for refund of the excess amount RCR.No.293/2009 3 retained by the respondent as advance, has some appeal to us. Accordingly, the RCR is decided in the following terms; i). The order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3) is confirmed. ii). The Revision Petitioner is granted time till 15/6/2010 to surrender the petition schedule premises subject to the condition that the revising petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, within one month from today undertaking to peacefully surrender the possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent/landlord on or before 15/6/2010. iii). Before issuing delivery warrant to the Amin, the Execution Court shall ensure that the advance amount of Rs.60,000/- less amounts due to the respondent as arrears of rent including the rent which falls due till 15/6/2010 is paid by the respondent to the revision petitioner. This means that unless and until the RCR.No.293/2009 4 balance amount actually due to the revision petitioner is paid to him, the court will not effect delivery of the building in question in favour of the respondent. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk