IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 RCRev..No. 52 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.57/2005 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.42/2003 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDULLA, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.MOHAMMED- KUNJU, ANJUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. 2. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, ANJUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. 3. NABEESA, AGED 68 YEARS,W/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, ANJUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA, OCHI-28. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS\ --------------------------------------- 1. K.V.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. A.K.VELAYUDHAN ELAYIDAM, KUTTANIPPALLY HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. 2. K.V.JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.A.K.VELAYUDHAN ELAYIDAM, KUTTANIPPALLY HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. 3. SUHARA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEAS, D/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU, ANJUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. 4. LAILA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU, ANUUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. 5. NADEERA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, ANJUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. 6. UMAIDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/0 MOHAMMED KUNJU, ANJUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI 28. 7. AABIDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/0 MOHAMMED KUNJU, ANJUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA KOCHI -28. 8. ASMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O MOHAMMED KUNJU, ANJUPURACKAL HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI 28. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RCR. No. 52 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The tenants are in revision. They are challenging the order of eviction concurrently passed against them on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and the tenants having other buildings in their possession reasonably sufficient for their requirement (Section 11(4)(iii). Several contentions were raised by the revision petitioners tenants resisting the prayer for eviction on both the grounds. The Rent Control Court conducted an elaborate enquiry and the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A9, B1 to B7, C1 and C2 and the oral evidence of PW1 and RWs 1 and 2. On appreciating the evidence the court came to the conclusion that the landlord was successful in making out eviction grounds under Section 11(3) as well as under Section 11(4)(iii). Even though the revision petitioners RCR. 52/10 - 2 - preferred appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence, that Authority also concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly appeal was dismissed confirming the order of eviction. 2. In this revision under section 20 the tenants have raised various grounds assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri.M.R. Dhanil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us extensively on the basis of those grounds. We have considered all the submissions of Mr.Dhanil. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20 we are of the view that there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity as envisaged by Section RCR. 52/10 - 3 - 20 tainting the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final authority on facts. We notice that the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that eviction ground under Section 11(3) as well as under Section 11(4)(iii) having been made out are findings founded on legal evidence actually available on record. That being so, we find it difficult to entertain this revision. 4. As his last request Sri.Dhanil, learned counsel sought for an year's time to surrender the premises. We are not inclined to grant so much of time. However, we feel that there is justification for granting six months time subject to certain conditions. The result of the above discussion is as follows: The RCR is dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioners. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition RCR. 52/10 - 4 - schedule premises subject to the following conditions:- The revision petitioners will file an affidavit before the execution court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises to R1 or R2 on or before 16-8-2010. Through the same affidavit it shall be undertaken that arrears of rent if any will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the current rent rate of Rs.350/- per mensem will also be paid to those two respondents as and when the same falls due. It is made clear that the revision petitioners will get the benefit of time granted as above only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-