IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 53 of 2011 ------------------------- RCA.62/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.32/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT/MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- KUTTILAKANDY BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUNHIKANARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- K.K.RAMAN, S/O. KELUKUTTY, AGED 78 YEARS, MUTHIRAPARAMBATH, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK-673022. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.53 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 ORDER Balakrishnan, J The tenant is in revision. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(v) confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is challenged by the tenant contending that the orders passed by the courts below are unsound and erroneous. The landlord contended that the tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule building for nearly two years prior to the date of petition. Advocate Commissioner who inspected the property submitted Ext.C1 report. The Commissioner was examined as CW1. He spoke in tune with the observations made by him as detailed in Ext.C1. The evidence given by CW1 could not be properly assailed by the tenant. The landlord also R. C. R. No.53 of 2011 -2- gave evidence to prove his case that the tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule building continuously for more than six months. Though, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued vehemently taking us through the grounds raised in the revision, we are not persuaded to accept the submissions. It is seen that both the authorities have analysed the evidence in the correct perspective. We are not persuaded to upset the finding concurrently arrived at by both the courts. The revision necessarily has to fail and is dismissed accordingly. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that sufficient time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. It is noticed that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears also. However, the tenant is granted seven months' time to vacate the petition schedule building but on the following conditions:- 3. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within R. C. R. No.53 of 2011 -3- three weeks from today before the execution court or Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to surrender the building peacefully to the landlord within seven months' from today and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if any, due as on date will be discharged within one month from today and further that with effect from 1st February, 2011 till the date of actual surrender the revision petitioner/tenant will pay Rs.500/- per mensem as occupation charges to the respondent/landlord. We make it clear that the revision petitioner/tenant will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- R. C. R. No.53 of 2011 -4-