IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 258 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.7/2010 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KASARAGOD RCP.6/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT KASARAGOD .................... REV.PETITIONER/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. VITTALA D.PRABHU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT RAMACHANDRA SHANBHOGUE'S COMPOUND, LOWER CAR STREET, MANJESHWAR HOSABETTU VILLAGE, POST MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. VAIKUNTA D.PRABHU, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT RAMACHANDRA SHANBHOGUE'S COMPOUND, LOWER CAR STREET, MANJESHWAR HOSABETTU VILLAGE, POST MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. KASTURI @ SHANTA BALIGA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE KAMALAKSHA BALIGA, R/AT SHEDIGURI IN ASHOK NAGER, MANGLORE, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 4. SARASWATHI PRABHU, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.LATE PADMANABHA PRABHU, R/AT C/O.HARIDAS PRABHU, KOMALAS RESTAURANT, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. GEETHA SHENAI, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.JAGADEESH SHENAI, R/AT SHAGHANIKETAN, MANAGUDDE, MANGLORE, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 6. JAYANTHI PRABHU, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT RAMACHANDRA SHANBHOGUE'S COMPOUND, LOWER CAR STREET, MANJESHWAR HOSABETTU VILLAGE, POST MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. SHANTHA PRABHU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT RAMACHANDRA SHANBHOGUE'S COMPOUND, LOWER CAR STREET, MANJESHWAR HOSABETTU VILLAGE, POST MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ NALINI SHENOY, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.LATE M.NARASIMHA SHENOY, R/AT LOWER CAR STREET HOSBETTU VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. PIN - 680512. ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 258 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Bavadasan, J. The revision petitioners/tenants challenge in this revision under Section 20, an order of eviction passed against them by the learned Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2), 11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965. 2. The landlady contended that she is entitled for order of eviction for non payment of rent and usage of the petition schedule building by the tenants in such a manner so as to destroy the utility and value of the building materially and permanently. 3. The tenant resisted the claim of the landlady for eviction contending that additional constructions made by them had in fact increased the value and utility of the building materially and permanently. RCR.No.258/2011 2 4. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found that the tenants had removed portion of wall, made an opening on the southern wall and the same have reduced the value and utility of the building. Both the courts below refused to accept the claim of the revision petitioners that due to the additional structures and constructions, the value and utility of the building is increased. The findings arrived at by the authorities below are based on appreciation of evidence and applying the correct law. As noticed by the authorities below, the constructions have to be assessed from the view point of the landlord. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the Act since there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners requested that some time may be granted to the revision petitioners to surrender the premises to the landlord. We are inclined to grant 9 months time from 1/8/2011 to the petitioners to surrender the premises subject to certain conditions. 6. In the result this revision fails and the same is RCR.No.258/2011 3 dismissed. However, if the revision petitioners file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within three weeks from today undertaking that they will surrender the petition schedule premises to the landlady on or before the expiry of 9 months from 1/8/2011 and undertaking further that they will pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from 1/8/2011 till the date of actual surrender, they can occupy the premises for 9 months from 1/8/2011. It is needless to mention that the revision petitioners will get benefit of time granted above, only if they file an affidavit within the stipulated time and honour the conditions as well. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE dpk