IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 RCRev..No. 314 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.68/2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE RCP.132/2006 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT ----------------------------- T.P. BHASKARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS, MANATHANPOYIL HOUSE, SHEEBA ARYAVYDYASALA, KARAPARAMBA, NEW HOMOEO COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.KAMALA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- T. SOMAN, S/O. PERACHUTTY, AGED 69 YEARS, THATTARAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KARAPARAMBA, KATCHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.314 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 ORDER C.K.Abdul Rehim, J. The tenant is in revision before this court against the concurrent findings of eviction ordered under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord for starting his own business in stationary in the petition schedule building. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the petition mainly on the ground that an earlier application filed by the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need, stood dismissed and the same was confirmed in appeal. The courts below found that the previous Rent Control Petition was filed during the year 1982 and the need projected in the present petition filed after a period of about two decades is sufficiently different and distinct. Therefore it is concurrently found that the bar under Section 15 of the Act will not be attracted, since there is a clear change of circumstance. RCR.No.314/2000 2 2. The bonafide need projected by the landlord is not genuine and it is only a ruse to get the rental amount enhanced, is the further contention of the revision petitioner. After evaluating the entire evidence on record, the trial court found that there was no demand for enhancement of rent and consequently the tenant was not successful in proving the motive alleged. The revision petitioner/tenant also raised a contention that the landlord is aged 67 years at the time of filing the rent control petition and he is not healthy enough to start business of his own, as alleged. There is a clear finding of the trial court in this regard that on the appearance itself the landlord seems to be quite healthy and is capable of running the business as projected. The above finding has been confirmed in appeal also. Exercising the revisional jurisdiction this court is not supposed to evaluate the correctness of those factual findings. 3. On an overall scanning of the judgments of the courts below impugned, we are convinced that there is clear evidence adduced from the side of the landlord in order to substantiate the bonafide need urged. The revision petitioner/tenant was not RCR.No.314/2000 3 successful in shaking credibility of the evidence adduced with respect to the bonafide need projected by the landlord. We do not find any irregularity, infirmity or illegality with the findings arrived by the courts below. In the result the revision petition is only to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Smt.T.Kamala Menon, lastly, seeks indulgence of this court to grant a reasonable time for the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises and for handing over peaceful possession. We heard Sri.E.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent who stoutly opposed the prayer. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant a period of seven months to the revision petitioner/tenant for vacating the premises. Hence the revision petition is disposed of on the following terms; If the revision petitioner/tenant files an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule building to the landlord on or before 25th RCR.No.314/2000 4 September 2009 and if the revision petitioner pays/deposits arrears of rent, if any due and also continues to pay the rent till such date, the Execution Court will adjourn proceedings for effecting delivery of the building, till 25/9/2009. The filing of affidavit as stated above and payment of arrears if any due shall be done within a period of two weeks from today. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk