IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 RCRev..No. 250 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.3/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD RCP.21/2004 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- KUMARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, LAKSHMI NAGAR, HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNUINNI SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ M.SUBRAMANIAN NAMBISSAN, S/O.K.M.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBISSAN, NEAR DURGA HIGH SCHOOL, HOSDURG IN HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2285/2008 IN MAT.APPEAL No.250/2008 CLOSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 13/10/2008 \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No.250 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This revision petition is filed by the tenant in a petition for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). Eviction was claimed by the landlord under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act, which was ordered by the Rent Control Court allowing eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. This stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority in the judgment impugned. 2. We heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri T. Krishnanunni. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the bonafide need pleaded is not genuine and the finding on the above aspect rendered by the authorities below is not correct. Relying upon the provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act, it is submitted that the findings rendered by the authorities on those aspects are also faulty. 3. The landlord sought eviction of the petition schedule room for his own occupation, as he has no job of his own. The business proposed is in textiles. The up stair room of the same building which is now used for RCR 250/2008 -2- stocking aluminium vessels for his son, is needed by him for stocking the business articles and apart from that, no other rooms are available with him. A reading of the orders passed by the authorities below shows that both the authorities are of the view that the bonafide need pleaded is genuine. The objection raised by the tenant was that the landlord was having another business, and that he has got a room in the up stair of the building. It was found that the business by name 'Sree Ganesh Enterprises' is not the business concern of the landlord and as far as the up stair room is concerned, it was held that the same is used now for the purpose of the son and that will be made use of by the landlord for stocking the textile goods. In that view of the matter, it was held that the bonafide need pleaded is genuine and that the claim is not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. As regards the two limbs of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, it was found concurrently by the authorities below that even though the tenant is depending on the income from the business, he has failed to prove that other buildings are not available in the locality and the burden is on the tenant to prove both the limbs. The benefit of the second proviso was thus found against the tenant. 4. Even though the arguments raised before the authorities below were vehemently raised before us, we find that both the authorities have RCR 250/2008 -3- elaborately discussed the evidence and have rendered findings after meticulously scanning the oral and documentary evidence. The appreciation of evidence is not faulty and is not perverse. We are also satisfied that the landlord has proved the grounds for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 5. In the light of the view we expressed during the course of the argument, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that if a larger time is allowed to vacate the premises, the petitioner is prepared to withdraw the contentions. In that view of the matter, the tenant is allowed to withdraw the contentions and we grant 10 months to vacate the premises. The revision petition is dismissed and the time granted as above to vacate the premises will be on the following conditions: i) That the entire arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited before the Execution Court within a period of one month from today and the petitioner shall also file an affidavit within the said time undertaking to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises on or before the expiry of the period of ten months from today, i.e. on or before 13.8.2009. ii) that the tenant shall not induct any third party into the premises; RCR 250/2008 -4- iii) that an amount equivalent to the rent towards use and occupation of the building shall be regularly paid by the tenant until vacant possession is given; and iv) that if for any reason the tenant fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, the order of eviction passed by the court below will forthwith become enforceable. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/