IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RCRev..No. 60 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.31/2008 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.58/2006 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- SHERIFA BEEVI, W/O.M.P.MOHAMMED, TC 15/1744, (RATION SHOP), GROUND FLOOR, RAJ KAMAL BUILDINGS, OPPOSITE TAGORE THEATRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. MANI RAJ GOPAL, W/O.LATE RAJA GOPAL, 'AJITH', SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJ KUMAR, S/O.LATE RAJ GOPAL, 'AJITH', SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 61 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RCR. Nos. 60 & 61 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. These revision petitions are filed by the tenants raising identical grounds against the order of eviction concurrently passed against them by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of requirement of reconstruction uncer clause (iv) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. Even though the bonafides of the need for reconstruction projected and the averments of the landlord regarding the condition of the building as warranting reconstruction were disputed by the tenant, the Rent Cotrol Court on the basis of the evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A12, C1 to C3 commission reports, oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and CPWs 1 to 5 came to the conclusion that the building is in such a condition as warranting reconstruction and that all the statutory pre- RCR. 60 & 61 of 2010 - 2 - requisites for ordering eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) are satisfied. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed providing that the tenant is entitled to be re-inducted into reconstructed building in terms of the proviso to Section 11 (4)(iv). The Appellate Authority considering the appeals preferred by the revision petitioners practically concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeals. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. On considering these revision petitions for admission it was noticed by us that we had occasion to decide another revision petition, RCR. No. 301 of 2009 in respect of another portion of the larger building which is subject matter of the present revision petitions. As directed by us copies of these revision petitions were served on Sri.G.Ram Mohan who appeared for landlords in that revision petition. Sri.G. Sudheer, Karakonam, learned counsel for the revision RCR. 60 & 61 of 2010 - 3 - petitioners addressed us on all the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. According to him, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is illegal, irregular and improper warranting correction under section 20. Mr. Ram Mohan per contra would draw our attention to our own order in RCR. No. 301 of 2009. He submitted that it has been found by this court under that order that there is no infirmity about the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and having gone through the order of the Rent Cotrol Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority and having kept in mind our own order in RCR No. 301 of 2009, we are of the view that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the eviction orders, which are under challenge in these revision petitions. We confirm them and dismiss the RCRs. 2. Sri.Sudheer Karakonam sought for one year's time RCR. 60 & 61 of 2010 - 4 - to vacate from the premises as a last request. This request is stiffly opposed by Sri.Ram Moham who submitted that in RCR No. 301 of 2009 this Court became inclined to grant time only till 15-6-2010. We feel, having regard to the decision taken by us in RCR No. 301 of 2009, it may not be proper for us to grant time beyond what is granted in that order. Accordingly we are inclined to grant time only till 15- 6-2010. The result of the above discussion is as follows: RCRs are dismissed. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building for a period of four months from today subject to the condition that the revision petitioners file affidavits before the execution court within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises to the landlords/respondents on or before 15-6-2010 and undertaking further to discharge the arrears of rent if any and to pay occupational charges at the current RCR. 60 & 61 of 2010 - 5 - rent rate, as and when the same falls due. Upon noticing such affidavits the E.P. will be adjourned to 16-6-2010 by the execution court. The landlord respondent shall commence reconstruction and complete the ground floor portion of the building at the earliest and at any rate, within one year of getting vacant possession. Once the construction of the ground floor portion of the proposed building is completed the revision petitioners will be re- inducted into a portion of the ground floor subject to their liability to pay fair rent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-