IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 348 of 2011() ------------------------ (RCA NO.20/2010 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD IN RCP NO.27/2008 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, HOSDURG) REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT (S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------ K.K.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.K.K.RAMAN,PHOTO LAND STUDIO, OPPOSITE BUS STAND,KOTTACHERY, KANHANGAD, BALLA VILLAGE, P.O KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- ABDUL MAJEED P.V, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHAMMED HAJI,RESIDING AT KOTTACHERY,KANHANGAD, BALLA VILLAGE, P.O KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.348 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 O R D E R Abul Rehim, J. Tenant is the revision petitioner in this revision filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act 1965. Challenge is against an order of eviction passed on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord for own occupation of the premises. The order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Need projected by the landlord is that, the tenanted premises is required for conducting business of his own, dealing in mobile phones. 2. Before the Rent Control Court, oral evidence was adduced by the landlord as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. Contra evidence was adduced by examination of the revision petitioner/ tenant as RW1. Ext.C1 commission report was also RCR.No.348/2011 2 marked as Court Exhibit. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence on record found that the need put forth by the landlord is genuine and bonafide. The Rent Control Court also found that the tenant was not successful in proving the requisite ingredients for getting benefit under the provisos to section 11 (3). On an elaborate reappraisal of the evidence on record, the Appellate Authority concurred with all the finding of the Rent Control Court. 3. In this revision petition, elaborate arguments were advanced by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. It is contended that the Courts below went wrong in declining benefit of the first proviso to section 11 (3), in spite of evidence was adduced to the effect that the landlord is in possession of another building within the same city suitable for accomplishing the need projected. But, on a perusal of the order of the Rent Control Court as well as judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are convinced that the revision petitioner was not successful in proving that the other building is in occupation of the landlord as well as the fact that it is suitable for accomplishing the need projected. With respect to the second RCR.No.348/2011 3 proviso, even though the tenant contended that the income derived out of the business conducted in the tenanted premises is the sole means of his livelihood, no conclusive or substantial evidence is produced to establish the same. So also the tenant had failed in proving that no suitable other buildings are available in the locality in order to shift the business conducted in the premises in question. 4. In the attenuated jurisdiction conferred on this court , which is revisional in nature, we are not expected to have any reappraisal of the evidence on record. However, on a scanning of the impugned order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we do not find any material to observe that the authorities below went wrong in appreciating the evidence on record or omitted to take note of any materials piece of evidence. On the basis of the concurrent findings arrived by the courts below, we do not find any illegality irregularity or impropriety with respect to the conclusions arrived. 5. The result of the discussion above is that the revision petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be RCR.No.348/2011 4 dismissed. Hence, we do so. 6. After coming to know about the decision as above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an appeal to this court to permit six months time from today to vacate the tenanted premises. Considering the overall situation, we are inclined to grant time to the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition schedule building, till 31/3/2012, subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner/tenant will file an affidavit before the Rent control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building on or before 31/3/2012. The affidavit as above shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today. ii). The Revision petitioner/tenant will also pay arrears of rent if any due within a period of one month from today and shall continue to payment of occupational charges at the rate of existing monthly rent till surrender the building. Benefits granted under this order will be available to the petitioner only if he complies with the conditions stipulated above. Needless to say that if all the conditions are complied RCR.No.348/2011 5 within the time stipulated, then the Execution Court shall put off delivery of the petition scheduled building till 31/3/2012. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk