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 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 RCRev..No. 13 of 2006() ----------------------- RCA.68/2004 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE RCP.72/2002 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER. -------------------------------------------------------------- MAMBATTA HARIDASAN, S/O.KELUKUTTY, CHELANNUR,THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. -------------------------- K.P.HARSHAKUMAR, S/O.GOVINDANKUTTY, KAYASSERYPOYIL HOUSE, P.O.KANNANKARA, KANNANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.S.SURAJ (PALATHANATHU) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.13 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Landlord is the revision petitioner. He applied for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide need for own occupation. The rent control court ordered eviction on both the grounds. The appellate authority in appeal preferred by the tenant would confirm the order of eviction ordered under Section 11(2)(b). Therefore in this revision petition, we are concerned only with the decision of the rent control appellate authority on the petition for eviction under Section 11(3). 2. The plaint schedule building is a double storied commercial building having four rooms in each of the floors. The case of the landlord was that the landlord is presently put up in the family house where the families of his brothers and sister were also put up. The landlord wanted to occupy the plaint schedule building after making suitable alterations along with his immediate family consisting of his wife and children. RCR.No.13/06 2 3. The rent control court on evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties would accept the landlord's case in full and accordingly ordered eviction under Section 11(3). The appellate authority however noticed the following circumstances: 1) The landlord was a coconut climber and even according to him, an estimated amount of rupees one lakh will be required for carrying out the necessary alterations to the petition schedule building so that it can be occupied as a residential building. The landlord had not produced any evidence in support of his claim that he was having a sum of rupees one lakh with him. 2) It was common ground that an approved plan and permit is required from the local authority for carrying out alterations to the petition schedule building. The plan or licence required was not produced by the landlord. 3) Landlord had not produced any RCR.No.13/06 3 materials to support his case that some of the tenants in occupation of the other rooms in the building have already vacated and that the other tenants have agreed to vacate. It was noticed that no proceedings had been initiated by the landlord for evicting the tenants who were actually in occupation of the other rooms. 4) Admittedly the landlord is not the absolute owner of the building. He owns it in common with his brother Sri. Prakasan. No material was produced by the landlord to show that the proposal was acceptable to Sri.Prakasan. 4. We have heard the submissions of Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.Thomas Antony, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.Bindu would assail the decision of the rent control appellate authority on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. However, in response to our query, he submitted that the revision petitioner is ready RCR.No.13/06 4 and willing to satisfy the execution court of the following aspects before the respondent/tenant is actually evicted from the petition schedule building. 1) The petitioner/landlord has an approved plan and permit from the local authority to carry out the proposed alterations to the building. 2) All the other tenants in the building have already vacated. 3) Petitioner has the estimated amount of rupees one lakh with him as deposit in a local bank. 4) Petitioner's brother Sri.Prakasan is also agreeable to the proposal to evict the tenant. 5. It was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that if the above four aspects are taken care of by the execution court, there will not be any legitimate ground for resisting the order of eviction. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the revision petition can be allowed and the order of eviction RCR.No.13/06 5 under Section 11(3) can be restored in favour of the revision petitioner/landlord subject to the execution court being convinced of the various aspects made mention of above. We set aside the impugned order and restore the order of eviction passed by the rent control court under Section 11(3). However, we direct the execution court not to effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the petitioner/landlord until : 1) The execution court becomes convinced on the basis of local verification through Commissioner or otherwise that all the tenants in the larger building of which the petition schedule building is a part except the respondent tenant have vacated. 2) The execution court is convinced that the petitioner/landlord is in possession of the approved plan/permit issued by the local authority regarding the proposal to alter/ re-model the petition schedule building. RCR.No.13/06 6 3) The petitioner has produced before the execution court the fixed deposit receipt pertaining to deposit of rupees one lakh in a local bank in the name of the petitioner. 4) The petitioner's brother Sri.Prakasan gives consent in writing regarding the eviction. Revision Petition is allowed as above. But in the circumstances, parties will suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. RCR.No.13/06 7