IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No.114 of 2009 ---------------------------- RCA.61/2008 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.71/2007 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ P.O.JOHNSON, S/O.OUSEPH,AGED 57 YRS, UNIVERSAL PIPES,T.D.ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682035. BY ADV. SRI.O.F.JUSTIN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- KAMALA K.SHENOY,AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE KRISHNA SHENOY,GOKUL,T.D.ROAD, KOCHI-682035. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.114 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant against whom order of eviction has been passed by the authorities under the Rent Control Act concurrently under clause-3 of Sub Section 4 of Section 11 is the petitioner in this revision under Section 20. 2. Even though Sri.O.F.Justin, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us very strenuously, we are unable to find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that eviction ground under Section 11(4)(iii) is made out against the petitioner. As his last submission, Sri.O.F.Justin, learned counsel for the R. C. R. No.114 of 2009 -2- petitioner sought for time till the end of this year i.e. 31/12/09 to vacate the premises. 3. Sri.S.Sachithananda Pai, learned counsel for the landlady who has taken notice, would oppose the above request tooth and nail. According to him, the finding is that the tenant is having more space than what is necessary for him at his disposal within the limits of the city itself. According to him, there is no justification for granting more than three months' time to the petitioner to surrender the premises. 4. Having considered the rival submissions in the context of the time to be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises, we feel that the petitioner can be granted time till 30/11/09 to surrender the premises to the landlady. R. C. R. No.114 of 2009 -3- 5. Accordingly this RCR is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. At the same time, there will be a direction to the execution court to adjourn the E.P. to the first of December, 2009 provided the revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court stating that he will unconditionally and peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlady on or before 30th of November, 2009 and stating further in the affidavit that he will discharge the entire arrears of rent, if any, and will continue to pay the amounts at the present rent rates towards occupational charges till he surrenders the building actually. The affidavit as directed above shall be filed by the revision petitioner within three weeks and if the affidavit is not filed within the above time R. C. R. No.114 of 2009 -4- limit, the revision petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of time granted by this order. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-