IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 135 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.17/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY TRIVANDRUM RCP.17/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- E.M.KASI, S/O. ESMAIL, T.C.63/2005, VIKAS NAGAR, AMBALATHARA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.RON THOMAS JOSEPH SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): L.RS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT/L.RS OF DECEASED PETIT ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMLA IQBAL, BISMI HOUSE, POONTHURA.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695026. 2. SAJITHA, BISMI HOUSE, POONTHURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695026. 3. SIBINA, BISMI HOUSE, POONTHURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695026. ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 135 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. The eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide need for additional accommodation and also on the ground that the tenant used the building in such a manner as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently. 2. The claim was opposed by the tenant. After analysing the evidence, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction under section 11(3) of the Act. But, declined eviction on the other two grounds. The tenant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. 3. Sri.R.S.Kalkura learned counsel for the tenant submits that the courts below did not appreciate the evidence properly and have entered into a wrong conclusion. It is pointed out that the landlord's daughter, for whose need the petition schedule RCR.No.135/2011 2 building was sought to be evicted, was not examined and that fact should have been duly taken note of by the courts below to hold that the need projected by the landlord is not true. This plea has been pressed into service by the learned counsel Sri.R.S.Kalkura to contend that the orders passed by the courts below have to be set aside. 3. Sri.J.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the landlord submits that since the father who has claimed eviction has given evidence as to the need to accommodate his daughter to start a DTP centre in the petition schedule building, that evidence itself is sufficient to hold that the need projected is bona fide. If the evidence given by the landlord with regard to the trade or business proposed to be conducted by the dependent daughter inspires confidence in the mind of the court, then the non examination of the daughter of the landlord cannot be fatal to the landlord's case. The trial court had the opportunity to watch the demeanour of PW1. It was accepted for valid reasons. 4. Both the courts below have analysed the evidence given by PW1 and found that PW1's daughter is unemployed and that her need to start a DTP centre in the petition schedule RCR.No.135/2011 3 building is genuine and honest. Within the contours of Section 20 of the Act, we cannot upset the findings entered by the two courts below. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of eviction concurrently passed. 5. As a last submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submits that at least one and half years time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. This request has been stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the landlord. However, we are inclined to grant one year time to the tenant/revision petitioner to vacate the petition schedule building. The result therefore is as follows; The revision petition is dismissed. The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 24/5/2012 subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building on or before 24/5/2012 and undertaking further that arrears of rent will be discharged within one month from today and also that he continues to pay occupation charges at the RCR.No.135/2011 4 present rate till the actual surrender is made. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will become eligible for time allowed as above only if he files affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk