IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 264 of 2008 (D) -------------------------------- RCA.142/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.96/2003 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL COURT/ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT/ ISR RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------- KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL KATHAT ABDUL MUTHALIB, S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & 2ND RESP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.T.USHAIRATH, D/O.ABDUL SALAM MOULAVI, AGED 33 YEARS,NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT NAJATH MANZIL, PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DT. 2. M.G.BABU, BARBAR SHOP, NEAR PAPPINISSERI RAILWAY STATION, P.O.PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DT. ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.264 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery ordering eviction against him on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11 reversing the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the RCP. The need projected by the landlady was that her husband wants to conduct a Super Market in the petition schedule building which consists of two rooms in the ground floor and one room in the upstair. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence did not find anything to suspect the bona fides of the need projected. However, it was found that during the pendency of the RCP, an order of eviction had been passed R. C. R. No.264 of 2008 -2- in respect of the ground floor room adjacent to the petition schedule building. According to the Rent Control Court, as an order of eviction has been obtained by the landlady also in respect of the adjacent room it was open to the landlady to accomplish the need by utilizing that room. The learned Appellate Authority, however, noticed that the landlady was yet to come into actual possession of that room. It was also noticed that landlady is not the absolute owner of that room. In that view of the matter, the learned Appellate Authority would reverse the decision of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction. 2. In this revision, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.A.Mohammed Mustaque, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments based on the grounds raised. Sri.Mustaque drew our attention to the judgment of the Appellate Authority and also to certain items of evidence R. C. R. No.264 of 2008 -3- which according to him, were not noticed by the Appellate Authority. Sri.Mustaque submitted that the question is whether the need is bona fide. For answering the question, the action of the landlady in not utilising the building possession of which has come into her hands will be relevant. 3. Sri.P.U.Shailajan, the learned counsel for the landlady, however, submitted that the landlady is not the absolute owner of the adjacent room. The landlady was only one of the co-sharers of that room. The first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 cannot have any application. The learned counsel further submitted that in the nature of the need which is for conduct of a Super Market, the need will be accomplished only if the entire petition schedule building is obtained. Even the adjacent room, if the other sharers are willing, will be utilised later for accomplishing this need itself. R. C. R. No.264 of 2008 -4- 4. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 for interfering with the impugned judgment. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgment of the Appellate Authority. According to us, the finding entered by the Appellate Authority are reasonable having founded on evidence already came on record. The revision, necessarily has to fail. 5. However, considering the very fervent appeal of Sri.Mohammed Mustaque, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant that at least one year's time may be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises, we feel that there is justification for granting the revision petitioner/tenant at least one year's time to surrender the premises. However, we are inclined to do so only on imposing conditions. We notice that the rent that R. C. R. No.264 of 2008 -5- the petitioner pays for the building in question is only Rs.45/-. We are sure that the same is far below the rent which the building may now fetch, if the same is let out today. Hence, by way of condition, we will be re-fixing the rent also. The result, therefore, is that; 6. The RCR is dismissed confirming the order of eviction. The execution court is directed to keep in abeyance all proceedings for delivery of the building in question to the landlady for a period of one year from today i.e. till 31/03/12 subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, within one month from today undertaking as follows:- 1) that he shall give peaceful surrender of the building to the landlady on or before 31/03/12; 2) that he shall with effect from 01/04/11 pay to the landlady occupational charges at the rate of Rs.500/- per R. C. R. No.264 of 2008 -6- mensem. 3) that he shall discharge the arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if the affidavit as directed above is filed and the undertakings contained therein are honoured. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-