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 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 167 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.1/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA RCP.3/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------- K.U. BABY, BOBBY VILLA, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- T.K. JOHN, THATTAROOZHATHIL VEETTIL, THATTAMMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.167 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. This revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 is filed by the defeated tenant challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1/2002 dated 15th March 2005 confirming the order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.3/2000 dated 31st October 2001 ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 2. The revision respondent/landlord filed R.C.P before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act alleging that the tenant has kept rent in arrears and that the landlord bonafide requires the petition schedule shop room for his dependent son to start a business, that there are no other suitable buildings available for the landlord to conduct the business and that the tenant is not depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. RCR.No.167/05 2 3. The tenant contested the claim by contending that he has not kept the rent in arrears , that the bonafide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine and that the son of the landlord is now employed in Behrain and that there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality for shifting the business of the tenant. 4. Before the Rent Control Court, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the landlord. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B16 were marked on the side of the tenant. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of evidence found that the bonafide need put forward by the landlord is genuine, that the tenant is not entitled to the benefits of the first and second provisos of Sub Section 3 of Section 11 of the Act and ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Before the Rent Control Court, the claim for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was not pressed. The Appellate Authority confirmed the above order of the Rent Control Court. Now the tenant has come up in revision. 5. Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel for the tenant argued that the landlord has not specifically pleaded in the petition the exact RCR.No.167/05 3 nature of the business to be conducted by the landlord's son and that on that ground itself, it should be held that the bonafide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine. We are unable to agree. In Ext.A2(a) letter sent by the son from Kuwait, it is specifically stated that he wanted the petition schedule room to conduct some business or a tuition centre. The specific case of the tenant is that the son of the landlord is not competent to conduct any business. Therefore, merely because the landlord has not stated in the RCP the specific nature of the business to be conducted by the son of the landlord, the tenant is not at all prejudiced. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the above argument advanced by the counsel for the tenant. 6. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both parties before the Rent Control Court, the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order of Rent Control Court or in the judgment of Appellate Authority to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20. That being so, the revision petition has to be dismissed. RCR.No.167/05 4 7. Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for one year's time to vacate the building. This is opposed by Sri.N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the landlord. Taking into account the fact that the tenant is conducting business in the petition schedule shop room, we feel that time upto 31/01/2010 can be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises on the following conditions : 1) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within three weeks from this date agreeing to surrender possession of the petition schedule building on or before 31/01/2010. On receipt of such affidavit, the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, shall defer delivery till 01/02/2010. 2) The tenant shall pay rent upto date within one month from this date and future rent as and when the same falls due, failing which, he RCR.No.167/05 5 will not be entitled to the benefit of time granted by this court. 3) Before ordering delivery, the son of the landlord shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court that on getting vacant possession of the building, he is prepared to come back from abroad and occupy the same. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with the above directions. No order as to costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.167/05 6