IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 156 of 2007() ------------------------------------ RCA.NO.3/2001 OF II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM RCP.NO.60/1997 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONERS/2ND RESSPONDENT/2ND COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BALAN PILLAI.M.C. NO.379, PAIKKADA ROAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VENKIDA LEKSHMI, SELVI LATHA NIVAS, THAMARAKKULAM, KOLLAM. 2. VASANTHA, -DO-,-DO-. 3. USHAKUMARI, -DO-,-DO-. 4. SARASA RANI, -DO-,-DO-. 5. SANTHI, -DO-,-DO-. R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.156 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision. He challenges the judgment of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 and under clause (iv) of sub section (4) and Section 11. The landlady invoked the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation and the ground of reconstruction(Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) respectively) for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant. 2. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction only on the ground of arrears of rent. It is submitted that the above order passed under Section11(2)(b) has become final. The Rent Control Court declined eviction on the other two grounds. 3. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the landlady and has passed the impugned judgment ordering eviction on the grounds under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) also. 4. In this revision, the tenant challenges the judgment of RCR.No.156/2007 2 the Appellate Authority on various grounds. Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed us in detail on the basis of those grounds. Mr.Suresh Kumar highlighted that the need projected in the rent control petition was to demolish the petition schedule room and the adjacent room and put up a shopping complex in its place. However, when the landlady mounted the box for giving evidence, she deviated from her pleadings and stated that possession of the petition schedule room was necessary for providing passage to a shopping complex which is to be constructed on the back side. She even stated that she is not willing to let out any room in the shopping complex and insisted that eviction order should be passed under Section 11(3) alone. According to the learned counsel, the shift in the stand taken by the landlady at the time of evidence is indicative of absence of bona fides. When bona fides is found to be absent, even the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) cannot be granted. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is true that at the time of evidence, the landlady made a significant shift from her pleaded RCR.No.156/2007 3 case regarding the purpose for which the petition schedule room or its site is to be used. But, according to us, the tenant/revision petitioner does not have to be aggrieved by the eviction order presently passed. We notice that repelling the landlady's stand that the eviction order should be passed only under Section 11 (3), the Rent Control Appellate Authority has passed order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) also and specifically directed the landlady to induct the revision petitioner into one room in the shopping complex to be constructed. In other words, it has been made clear in the judgment that the tenant will be entitled for the benefit of the 3rd proviso to section 11(4)(iv). It is the landlady who should have been aggrieved by the impugned judgment. Interestingly, the landlady has not preferred any revision before this court. We do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety tainting the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The revision petition will stand dismissed confirming the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 6. The revision petitioner/tenant is given six months time for vacating the petition schedule building subject to the following conditions; RCR.No.156/2007 4 The revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the landlady within six months from today and undertaking further through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any will be discharged within one month and that occupational charges at the existing rent rate will also be paid without fail till such time as she surrenders the building. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk