IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 RCRev..No. 254 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.13/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM RCP.1/2005 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN RCP. ------------------------------------------------ P.A.VIJAYAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, NEW KERALA SHOE MART, MUTTOM JUNCTION, PALA-POONJAR ROAD, ERATTUPETTA-686 121. BY ADV. SRI.S.U.NAZAR SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT N RCP. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.MOHAMMED YOOSUF,S/O.KOCHU MAKKAR HAJI, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MADACKAL, ERATTUPETTA, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.27/3624,MAKKAR LANE, PERUMANOOR,KOCHI-682 015. 2. AYYAPPAN, NEW KERALA SHOE MART, MUTTOM JUNCTION,PALA-POONJAR ROAD, ERATTUPETTA-686 121, RESIDING AT THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,PALA-686 575. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2321/2008 IN R.C.R No.254/2008 CLOSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 17/10/2008 \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No. 254 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He is faced with an order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 as affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the landlord has not proved his title But, we find no dispute of whatsoever nature was raised regarding title in the court below. Admittedly the petitioner is a tenant and he is paying rent also. Therefore, a landlord-tenant relationship is established. That alone is sufficient for the purpose of attracting the Act. It was then contended that the bonafide need is not proved because the landlord is an Advocate practicing at Ernakulam and there is no need for him to start an office at Erattupetta. Admittedly he hails from that place. So, that is his feeding centre. The bonafide need, in such circumstances, to have a building of his own for starting an office cannot be disputed. At any rate, both the courts concurrently found that the landlord has established his bonafide need. RCR 254/2008 -2- 2. Finding that the contention as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this court, learned counsel sought to withdraw the contentions, but sought for a larger time to give vacant possession of the building. Accordingly, we dismiss this revision petition allowing the petitioner to withdraw his contentions, so however, we grant 10 months time from today to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises on the following conditions: i) That the entire arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited before the Execution Court within a period of one month from today and the petitioner shall also file an affidavit within the said time undertaking to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises on or before the expiry of the period of ten months from today, i.e. on or before 17.8.2009. ii) that the tenant shall not induct any third party into the premises; iii) that an amount equivalent to the rent towards use and occupation of the building shall be regularly paid by the tenant until vacant possession is given; and iv) that if for any reason the tenant fails to comply with any of RCR 254/2008 -3- the aforesaid conditions, the order of eviction passed by the court below will forthwith become enforceable. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/