IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 153 of 2010() ---------------------------------- RCA.40/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA RCP.70/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT/MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SRI. C.K.BHASKRAN, S/O. KANARAN, VIYYOTH THAZHEKUNNIYYIL, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.GOVIND K. BHARATAN (SR.) MR.C.P.KUNHIKANNAN MR.C.A.JOY MR.S.K.MADHU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT. MOTTEMMAL SEENATH, D/O. ABDULLA HAJI, MYLIADIKKUNNI HOUSE, PURAMERI VILLAGE, MUTHUVADATHUR DESOM,VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. SRI. MOHAMMED, S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, SWASTHAM, MYLIADIKKUNI HOUSE, PURAMERI VILLAGE, MUTHUVADATHUR DESOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt RCRev..No. 153 of 2010 ORDER IN I.A.No.1406/2010 IN RCR No.153/2010 Dismissed. ORDER IN I.A.No.1407/2010 IN RCR No.153/2010 Dismissed. ORDER IN I.A.No.2701/2010 IN RCR No.153/2010 Dismissed. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. 18.2.2011. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.153 of 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of February 2011 O R D E R N.K.Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. The order of eviction concurrently passed by the two authorities under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(3) is challenged in this revision. The tenant filed counter statement inter alia contending that there is no landlord-tenant relationship and as such the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The landlady contended that as per Ext.A1 kachit executed by the tenant, the petition schedule building was rented out to the revision petitioner and that the rent payable as per that kachit was kept in arrears by the tenant. 2. The landlady contended that the petition schedule building is bonafide needed for the 2nd respondent herein for conducting Ayurveda Medical Shop. It is stated that he is at present working in the Medical Shop of one Kunhimoosa. R.C.R. No.153 of 2010 -: 2 :- 3. Besides contending that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between them, the revision petitioner contended that the need projected is not bonafide and that PW1 does not require the petition schedule building for conducting a business as stated in the petition. 4. Regarding the denial of title put forward by the tenant, the learned Rent Control Court found that no evidence could be adduced by the tenant to show that Ext.A1 registered rent deed executed by the tenant in favour of the landlady is a sham document. Admittedly, the registered rent deed was executed by the tenant in respect of the petition schedule building in favour of the landlady. The finding entered by the learned Rent Controller, after re-appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Smt.M.A.Zohra, who is appearing for the revision petitioner addressed arguments on that point at length. We have gone through the order passed by the Rent Control Court and also the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. No evidence was adduced by the tenant to show that Ext.A1 is a sham document. The tenant, who was the owner of the property assigned that property to the landlady herein. Though it was R.C.R. No.153 of 2010 -: 3 :- pleaded that it was executed only as a security, that case remains in the realm of suggestion alone. The finding that the denial of title put forward by the tenant is not bonafide is only to be confirmed. 5. Similarly the evidence given by PW1 that he intends to start a business in sale of Ayurveda medicines was also found to be bonafide. The learned Appellate Authority after thoroughly scanning the evidence confirmed the finding entered by the learned Rent Controller. Similarly, the finding that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) is also not assailable. Since undoubtedly the rent was kept in arrears, order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) is also sustainable. In view of the above, the RCR will fail and is accordingly dismissed. 6. Smt.Zohra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has made a fervent request to grant atleast one year time to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. Mr.Sethumadhavan, the learned counsel for the landlady has strongly opposed the request made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. However, considering all the aspects, we are inclined to grant six months time to the tenant to surrender R.C.R. No.153 of 2010 -: 4 :- the building. This will be on condition that the tenant shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the landlady on or before 18.8.2011 and undertaking further to discharge the arrears of rent within one month and to pay occupation charges at the current rent rate promptly and regularly as and when the same falls due till the date of actual surrender. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings contained therein. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt