IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 RCRev..No. 47 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.58/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.37/2002 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- U.K.ARAVINDAKSHAN S/O LATE KUNHIKUTTAN AGED 62 YEARS PADINHARE VATTAKANDY PARAMBA VALAYANAD AMSOM, KOMMERI DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAMKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS --------------- 1. VATTAKANDY KOUSALYA 62 YEARS, W/O LATE SHANMUGHAN 2. VATTAKANDY RAJEEV, AGED 40 YEARS S/O SHANMUGHAN 3. VATTAKANDY DHANYA D/O SHANMUGHAN AGED 39 YEARS 4. VATTAKANDY SAHID KUMAR S/O SHANMUGHAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.47 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant against whom order of eviction has been concurrently passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority is the revision petitioner. The need projected by the respondent/landlord was that the residential building is needed bonafide for occupation by his dependent son, 4th respondent who had come of age and was thinking in terms of marriage and setting up his own family. It became evident that during the pendency of the rent control petition, the dependent son got married and the authorities below became inclined to accept the case of PW1, the landlord that the need projected in the rent control petition has become all the more bonafide due to subsequent event of the dependent son getting married. 2. Sri.P.K.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the Tharavadu house in which the fourth respondent is presently residing is a palatial one and the conveniences available RCR.No.47/2009 2 there are much more than those in the subject building which is a relatively small one. We cannot agree. Obviously, the 4th respondent has got married and the need is to have privacy and independent residence for the newly wedded couple. Such a need should be presumed to be a bonafide one especially in the absence of any oblique motives established by the respondent. As his last submission, Sri.Ramkumar sought for ten month's time on the reason that the health condition of the revision petitioner is precarious. We do not think that we will be justified in granting so much of time. However, we feel that on the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, there is justification for granting six month's time. Even as we dismiss the revision petition confirming the order of the rent control court and the appellate authority, there will be a direction to the execution court not to deliver the schedule building over the landlord till 28/08/2009 on condition that the revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the schedule building to respondents 1 or 4 on or before 27/08/2009 and undertaking further to clear arrears of RCR.No.47/2009 3 rent, if any due in respect of the building and to pay the rent which falls due subsequently as and when the same falls due. Affidavit as directed above shall be filed by the revision petitioner within two weeks from today and once the execution court notices such an affidavit, the execution petition will be adjourned to 27/08/2009. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. RCR.No.47/2009 4