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 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No. 87 of 2010(D) ----------------------- RCA.12/2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM RCOP.3/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------- SATHYAN, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL MURUGA, NEAR POST OFFICE, OCHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------- SURENDRAN, S/O.LATE SANKARA PANICKER, BUSINESS, ANAYADIKANNIMEL VEEDU, MEMANA MURI, OCHIRA. ADV.SRI.K. HARILAL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.703/2010 IN RCR 87/2010 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 16.6.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.87 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 O R D E R ----------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. We have today by separate judgment dismissed RCR.No.18/2010 in which also the eviction order under challenge was passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently in favour of the very same landlord. Under that judgment, we have confirmed the eviction order passed on the ground under Section 11 (4)(iv). In fact in this case also the revision petitioner had claimed the protection of Section 106 of Land Reforms Act. But, unlike in RCR.18/2010, the revision petitioner in this case had no documentary evidence to support his claim for protection under Section 106. According to us, the claim for protection under Section 106 of Land Reforms Act was rightly repelled by the statutory authorities. As for the correctness of the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(iv), we notice that RCR.87/2010 2 the building involved in this case is very near to the building referred in RCR.18/2010 and the proposal of the respondent landlord was to put up a large shopping complex, after demolishing both these buildings. We find that in this case also the statutory authorities came to the conclusion that the statutory requirements such as, condition of the building, ability of the landlord, profitability of the proposal are all established. We do not find any infirmity about those conclusion warranting interference under Section 20. 2. The result of the above discussion is as follows: This revision also has to fail and the same will stand dismissed. We direct the execution court to ensure that the respondent has obtained a valid building permit from the Ochira Panchayat enabling him to carry out the proposed re-construction before ordering delivery. We direct the respondent to complete the re-construction of at least the ground floor portion of the proposed shopping complex within 8 months of obtaining possession. Once the ground floor portion is completed, RCR.87/2010 3 the revision petitioner will be re-inducted into a portion of the same, subject to his liability to pay fair rent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb