IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No.237 of 2009(D) ----------------------------- RCA.33/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM RCOP.6/2005 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/CR.PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- PAUL KURIEN, AGED 66 YEARS, KALOOTHARA HOUSE, CHANNANICADU, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND CR.PETITIONER-2 ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAYAMMA JOSE, AGED 64 YEARS, WIFE OF JOSE PHILIP, THEKKANATTU HOUSE, CHELLIYOZHUKUM ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. SUBASH, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF VIDYADHARAN, MUKKALKUNNU VILLOONNI, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.237 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J After going through the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court anxiously and on considering the extensive submissions which were addressed before us by Sri.Mathew Philip, we came to the conclusion by order dt.15/10/2009 that the Appellate Authority's judgment impugned in this RCR is not tainted by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety within the contemplation of section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. However, considering the last plea of Sri.Mathew Philip, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner R. C. R. No.237 of 2009 -2- that the revision petitioner who has been conducting his business in the said building for 45 years be granted one year's more time to surrender the premises, we issued notice to the respondent who has now entered appearance through Advocate Sri.K.G.Anil Babu. 2. We have heard Sri.Mathew Philip and Sri.Anil Babu on the question of the duration of time to be granted to the petitioner for surrendering the building. Sri.Anil Babu submitted that his client will not have serious objection to the court granting reasonably long period to the petitioner for surrendering the premises. He requested that it may be ensured that the entire arrears of rent which is due in respect of the building is paid by the revision petitioner and also that the petitioner gives a reasonable rent for the period which R. C. R. No.237 of 2009 -3- is being granted by this Court to him for surrendering the premises. Sri.Mathew Philip submitted that rent is not in arrears, a submission which was strongly disputed by Sri.Anil Babu. 3. Having regard to the submissions addressed before us, we are of the view that the RCR can be dismissed issuing the following directions:- 1) The judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court is confirmed. 2) The revision petitioner is granted time till 31/10/2010 to surrender the petition schedule premises subject to strict compliance of the following conditions:- a) The revision petitioner discharges the entire arrears of rent which has fallen due in respect of the said building after the institution of the Rent Control R. C. R. No.237 of 2009 -4- Appeal till date less any amount paid against proper receipts or memos within three weeks from today. b) The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent/ landlord on or before 31/10/2010. It will be undertaken through this affidavit that the petitioner shall continue to pay occupational charges to the landlord at the rate of Rs.600/- per mensem with effect from 1st November, 2009 till the day he actually surrenders the building. Non-compliance with either of the above conditions or violation of either of the above conditions will result in the revision petitioner forfeiting the benefit of time granted under this order to surrender R. C. R. No.237 of 2009 -5- the premises. If the above conditions are strictly complied with, the revision petitioner will not be evicted from the building before 31/10/2010. The RCR is dismissed subject to the above conditions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/- R. C. R. No.237 of 2009 -6- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.237 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Sri.Mathew Philip, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us extensively and very strenuously on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. We were taken through the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We are not persuaded to hold that either the order of the Rent Control Court or the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the Rent Control Court's order is tainted by illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. R. C. R. No.237 of 2009 -7- As his last submission, Mr.Mathew Philip sought for one year's time to the revision petitioner who has been conducting his business for the past 45 years, for surrendering the premises. Hence, issue notice by special messenger for deciding the duration of time to be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. Post on 19/10/09. I.A.2995/09 There will be interim stay of all execution proceedings inclusive of proceedings for delivery. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-