IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 R.C.Rev..No. 106 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- RCA.46/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE RCP.115/2007 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARIYATHODI MOHAMMEDKUTTY,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O. MAMMU,R/AT PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN. SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENT : RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.P.ALIKOYA,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE A.P.MOIDHEEN KOYA,KAITHAYIL HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 003. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.106 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of April 2011 ORDER Basheer, J. Tenant of a commercial building who has suffered a concurrent order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 has preferred this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act. 2. Respondent/landlord pleaded before the Rent Control Court that he intended to start a computer institute in the petition scheduled building. He had no other building of his own in his possession for the said purpose and he had no employment to earn his livelihood. It was further contended by the landlord that other suitable buildings were available in the locality, if the tenant wanted to shift his business. Moreover, the tenant was not depending on the income that he was allegedly receiving from the business that he was carrying on in the petition scheduled building. The landlord had also contended that the tenant had kept the rent in arrears without any justifiable reasons and that the building had been sublet to another without his knowledge or consent. 3. Petitioner/tenant resisted the claim for eviction and contended that the need put forth by the landlord was not at all bonafide and that he had R.C.R.No.106 OF 2011 :: 2 :: other buildings in his possession, if at all he wanted to start a business. The suitability of the building for the purpose of the business which the landlord intended to start was also questioned by the tenant. 4. The Rent Control Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, passed an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. However, the prayer for eviction under Section 11(4)(1) was turned down. The above order was challenged by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It was noticed by the appellate authority that the landlord had adduced satisfactory evidence to substantiate his claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The appellate authority also found that the tenant had kept the rent in arrears. Accordingly the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court was confirmed. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the building in the possession of the tenant from which he is sought to be evicted is not at all suitable or ideal for starting a computer institute. He points out that the building in question is only an anteroom with very minimal space, hardly suitable for any purpose. He further points out that the need projected by the landlord in the eviction petition was given up when the landlord was examined in the court as PW1. 6. We have been taken through the relevant portions in the petition and also the oral testimony of PW1. We do not find any inconsistency or R.C.R.No.106 OF 2011 :: 3 :: incongruity in the pleadings or in the evidence adduced by the landlord. It may be true that the landlord was not quite specific in the pleadings as regards the purpose for which he had sought eviction. It has come out in evidence that the landlord had subsequently obtained vacant possession of one room in the upstair portion and another in the downstair portion of the same building. Therefore, if we read the pleadings and the deposition of the landlord in that backdrop, we do not find any inconsistency in the case put forth by the landlord. 7. More importantly, the tenant had not adduced any evidence to show that he had been totally dependent on the income that he had been earning from the business in the petition scheduled building. Still further, he failed to adduce any evidence to show that no other suitable building was available in the locality to shift the business. In short, he failed to adduce any evidence to show that he was entitled to get the protection of the second proviso under Section 11(3) of the Act. Still further, the authorities have concurrently held that the petitioners had kept the rent in arrears. In short, we are totally satisfied that the two authorities below were justified in ordering eviction of the petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will be put to grave prejudice and loss, if he is thrown out of the R.C.R.No.106 OF 2011 :: 4 :: building immediately. He prays that petitioner may be granted two years' time to give vacant possession. 9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that petitioner can be granted six months' time to give vacant possession. Petitioner shall give vacant possession on or before October 15, 2011 unconditionally. He shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court undertaking to give vacant possession of the building to the landlord on or before October 15, 2011. The affidavit shall be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He shall deposit the entire arrears of rent and shall continue to pay the rent on or before 5th of every month till vacant possession is given. If the above two conditions are not satisfied, the revision petition shall stand dismissed. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE Sd/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes // True copy // P.A. to Judge