IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 465 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.29/2011 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ,KOLLAM BRCOP.32/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ DHANAPALAN, PROPRIETOR, NEW KERALA TYRE, NEAR BENZIGAR HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & APPELLANTS 2 & 3 & RES.2 TO 4/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 2, 4 & 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, CHANDRA BHAVAN, VENDAR MURI, PUTHOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691507. 2. JANAMMA, W/O. CHELLAPPAN, NEW KERALA TYRE, THOLIYARA VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL P.O., EAST WARD, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. SATHYA DHARAN, NEW KERALA TYRE, NEAR BENZIGAR HOSPITAL, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. SARASWATHY, CHEMPAKA VEEDU, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 011. 5. SHEELA KUMARI, SARASALAYAM, THANKASSERY P.O., KOLLAM-691 007. 6. AMMINI, KAIRALI VEEDU, VALATHUNGAL, KOLLAM-691 018. ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ RCR NO. 465 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant, against whom an order of eviction has been passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under sections 11(3) and 11(2)(b), is the revision petitioner. 2. We heard the submissions of Sri.V.G.Arun learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. P.B.Suresh Kumar learned senior counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the respondents who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of this revision. 3. Even though Sri.V.G.Arun addressed submissions on the basis of the various grounds raised in this revision petition assailing the findings entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the learned counsel towards the end of his submission would very fairly bring to our notice our own order in RCR No.453/2011. The learned counsel submitted that the above RCR No. 465 /2011 2 RCR is directed against the very same common judgment which is impugned in this revision. Mr.Arun submitted that if this court is not impressed by the challenge on the findings entered by the Appellate Authority, this court may dispose of this RCR giving reliefs similar to those given to the revision petitioner in RCR No.462/2011. 4. Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the contention, that the plan relied on by the landlord for reconstructing the building was not valid, was never raised by the present revision petitioner. Such a contention was raised only by the revision petitioner in RCR No. 453/2011. Hence, according to the learned senior counsel, granting reliefs which have apparently been given to the revision petitioner in RCR No. 453/2011 in the context of the contentions in relation to the permit and plan, will not be justified in this case. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the present revision petitioner has not preferred any appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and hence it is absolutely unnecessary to grant time for that reason to the present revision petitioner. RCR No. 465 /2011 3 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. As we had found in our order in RCR No. 453/2011, there is no warrant for interfering with the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, regarding the existence of the eviction ground, within the well delineated contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20. The learned senior counsel is certainly correct in his submission that unlike the revision petitioner in RCR No.453/2011 the present revision petitioner had not raised any contention before the Rent Control Appellate Authority which he had raised regarding the legality and validity of the plan approved by the local authority. It is also not disputed that the present revision petitioner has not preferred any appeal to the the local Self Government Institutions. But, nevertheless as the need projected by the landlord in the Rent Control Petition can be accomplished only if he gets possession of the building which is subject matter of the present revision petition and the building, which is subject matter of RCR NO.453/2011, we are of the view that it can be ordered that both the revision petitioners should be evicted only simultaneously from the buildings in their RCR No. 465 /2011 4 respective possession. The result of the above discussion is that the revision petition will stand dismissed for various reasons stated by us in our order in RCR No. 453/2011. As we had done in RCR No. 453/2011, we direct the Execution Court to keep the delivery proceedings in abeyance till 30/9/2012 subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner shall pay occupational charges for the building occupied by him with effect from 1/1/2012 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. ii). The revision petitioner shall discharge arrears of rent if any due as on date within a period of one month from today. Issue delivery warrant to the Amin in respect of the building which is subject matter of this Revision Petition and the building which is subject matter of RCR No. 454/2011 on the same day. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk RCR No. 465 /2011 5