IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 307 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.1/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.45/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER (APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT ): -------------------- S.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. SANKARANARAYANAN, DOOR NO. 7/436, THAREKKAD,KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SMT.O.K.SANTHA RESPONDENT(S): (FIRST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER) --------------- T.H. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE HARIHARA SHARMA, H 35 ANNA NAGAR, TRICHY, TAMILNADU. ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No. 307 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. In this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act 1965, Act 2 of 1965, the tenant impugns orders of eviction concurrently passed under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (v). The need projected by the landlord was that he had retired from service and he wants to settle down in his home town. The allegation in the context of ground under Section 11(4)(v) was that the revision petitioner tenant is having business in the state of Karnataka and he is not occupying the building continuously for more than six months without any reasonable cause. The bona fides of the need was resisted and the allegation of cessation of occupation was disputed. 2. The rent control court on an evaluation of the evidence which consisted of the oral testimonies of the landlord as PW1, Advocate Commissioner as PW2, the tenant as RW1 and Exts.C1 Commissioner's report and Ext.B1 ration card produced by the tenant RCR.No.307/08 2 concluded that the need and claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) was bona fide. It was also concluded that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months without any reasonable cause. The appellate authority on a re-appraisal of the evidence concurred with the conclusions of the rent control court. 3. Though Sri.D.Krishna Prasad would address us strenuously and would endeavour to pick holes in the judgment of the rent control court and the appellate authority, we are of the view that the orders of those statutory authorities are not vitiated by any irregularity, illegality or impropriety warranting intervention by this court under Section 20. After all the respondent belongs to Palakkad and it is only natural that in the evening of his life, he wanted to come back and settle down in Palakkad which is his home town. The finding in the context of ground under Section 11(4)(v) also is based on evidence and probabilities. The revision petition will stand dismissed. However, considering the last request of Sri.D.Krishna Prasad that atleast six month's time be granted, we are inclined to grant time till 22/05/2009 subject to the condition that the petitioner will file an affidavit before the execution RCR.No.307/08 3 court i.e. the Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad, stating unconditionally that he will give peaceful surrender of the premises to the respondent on or before 22/05/2009 and that he will discharge arrears of rent, if any and will continue to pay the rent which falls due subsequently as and when the same falls due. If the execution court notices such an affidavit filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today, that court will adjourn the execution petition to 23/05/2009. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.307/08 4