IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 2836 of 2002() ---------------------- RCA.42/2001 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.5/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ 1. SIVAN S/O. THAMBU, RESIDING AT CHEMBALODE, KUNNANNOOR AMSOM, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.PRINCE.K.ELIAS SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS.PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. KADHARBI S/O. ABDUL MUTHALEEF 2. YOUSUF S/O. ABDUL MUTHALEEF 3. ABBAZ S/O. ABDUL MUTHALEEF .ALL ARE RESIDING AT PENSION STREET, PALAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNJIKRISHANAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.2836 OF 2002 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner and he impugns in this revision under Section 20 of the Act the order of eviction concurrently passed against him on the ground of own occupation. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us very strenuously and persuasively on all the grounds raised in the rent control revision. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the rent control appellate authority and the order of the rent control court, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. On going through the order of the rent control court and the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, we find that the findings entered by those statutory authorities regarding the bona fides of the need and the claim projected in the rent control petition are well founded on legal evidence which is available on record. In fact, the tenant revision petitioner had claimed protection of the second proviso to sub section(3) also. We find that the CRP.No.2836/2002 2 authorities on the basis of the evidence on record found that the revision petitioner has not been successful in showing that he satisfies the ingredients of the second proviso. Having regard to the contours of our our revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of the Act. The RCR necessarily has to be fail. The same is dismissed. 2. As his last submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for one year's time to surrender the petition schedule building. We are not inclined to grant so much of time since there is opposition to such grant such time from the side of the respondent landlord. However, on considerations of indulgence, we are of the view that time can be granted till 31/12/2009 subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner tenant shall file affidavit before the reference court or before the rent control court as the case may be undertaking to peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to CRP.No.2836/2002 3 the respondent landlord on or before 31/12/2000 and undertaking further to liquidate the entire arrears of rent, if any and to pay occupational charges at rates equal to the correct rent rate till he actually surrenders the petition schedule building. Such affidavit shall be filed within three weeks from today. If such affidavit is filed , the execution court shall not order or effect delivery till 31/12/2009. ii). If affidavit is not filed, the revision petitioner will not get the benefit of time granted under this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk CRP.No.2836/2002 4 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.2836 OF 2002 ------------------------ o r d e r 13 TH JULY, 2009