IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 RCRev..No. 470 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.1/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) PATHANAMTHITTA RCP.3/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, (RENT CONTROL COURT) THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS (S): -------------------- 1. HAREES.M., S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, THATTANPPALLIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, ELIPPAKKULANGARA MURI, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 2. NIYAS.M. S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, THATTANPPALLIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, ELIPPAKKULANGARA MURI, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.K.S.SUMEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOSEPH JOHN, S/O. JOHN, CHIRAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERUMTHURUTHI KARA, KAVUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. SRI.K.SHAJ, CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- R.C.R. No. 470 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23Rd day of December, 2011 ORDER This matter comes up for admission. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. After detailed discussions at the Bar, we are not persuaded to agree that there is any reason to justify or warrant invocation of our revisional jurisdiction under Sec.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short `the Act'). 2. In the course of discussions, both counsel submit that the matter can be settled; but they have not been able to agree upon terms. The learned counsel for the petitioners presses that, at least, a period of two years' time may be granted to the petitioners to surrender vacant possession of the building in compliance with the impugned directions for eviction; whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that under any circumstances, a period exceeding six months may not be granted to the petitioners. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. In fact, R.C.R. No. 470 of 2011 -: 2 :- submissions have been made before us about the history of the litigation. The order of eviction has been passed under Secs.11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. We have already expressed our opinion that we do not find any reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Sec.20 of the Act. As the parties are not able to agree on the precise terms, after hearing them, we issue the following directions. The learned counsel agree that this Court may issue appropriate directions on these aspects. 4 In the result: (a) This R.C.R. is dismissed. (b) However, we direct that the petitioners shall have time till 31/12/2012 to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) The entire arrears of rent payable as on 31/12/2011 at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per mensem shall be paid on or before 31/1/2012. (ii) The petitioners shall file an unconditional undertaking before the Execution Court on or before 31/1/2012 to surrender vacant possession of the building on or before 31/12/2012. (iii) Rent from 1/1/2012 to R.C.R. No. 470 of 2011 -: 3 :- 31/12/2012 shall be payable at the rate of Rs.22,500/- per mensem and the same shall be paid in advance in a lump on or before 28/2/2012. (iv) If there be any violation of the terms of these directions, the respondent/landlord shall be at liberty to get the order executed forthwith. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.C.R. No. 470 of 2011 -: 4 :- R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- R.C.R. No.470 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 ORDER Give notice to the Caveator. Call on 23/12/2011. R. BASANT (Judge) V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/