IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 142 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.24/2000 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM RCP.10/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAULATHU BEEVI, D/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, KIZHAKKE VEEDU, MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAMMA KAMALAMMA, W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MARAVOOR PUTHEN VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 2. M.N.KARTHIKEYAN NAIR @ M.N.KARTHIKEYAN PILLAI, S/O.MARAVOOR NARAYANAPILLA ARAPPURA VEEDU, PERUMKULAM MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE. 3. M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, SANTHI, PERUMKULAM MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, FROM ARAPPURA VEEDU, PERUMKULAM MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE. 4. G.SANTHOSH, S/O.GOPINATHAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, VENMANOUR, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE. 5. N.GOPINATHAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, VENMANOUR, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE. 6. C.SAJEEV, S/O.GOPINATHAN, VENMANOUR, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.O.BARKATH ALI,JJ. --------------------------------- R.C.R..No.142 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July,2009 O R D E R BARKATH ALI, J. In this revision under Section 20 of Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, the defeated tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(1) of the Act. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 in this revision petition are the landlords. Respondents 4 to 6 are the alleged sub-tenants. Respondents 1 to 3, the landlords, filed RCP10/1998 before the Rent Control Court, Kottarakkara, seeking eviction under section 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act alleging that the landlords bonafide require the petition schedule shop room for starting Building Design and Consultancy Service for the 3rd petitioner in the RCP, that there are no other buildings in the possession of the landlords, that the revision petitioner who is the 1st respondent in RCR NO.142/2009 2 the RCP has sub-let the petition schedule building to respondents 2 to 4 in the RCP who are respondents 4 to 6 in the revision petition. 3. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the claim on the ground that the bonafide need put forward by the landlords is not genuine, that she depends on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room for her livelihood and that she has not sub-let the petition schedule building to respondents 2 to 4 in the RCP. Respondents 2 to 4 in the RCP supported the 1st respondent. 4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (1) of the Act finding that the landlords bona fide require the petition schedule shop room for conducting building design and consultancy service and that there was sub letting of the petition schedule shop rooms by the revision petitioner to respondents 4 to 6. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said findings of the Rent Control Court. Now, the tenant has come up in revision. 5. Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel for the revision RCR NO.142/2009 3 petitioner/tenant argued that the Rent Control Court has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and without appreciating the evidence, the eviction was ordered. 6. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both parties before the Rent Control Court and the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority, which were founded on evidence. We find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority to invoke our Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. That being so, the revision petition has to be dismissed. 7. Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought one year's time to surrender the building. The tenant is conducting a petty shop in the petition schedule shop rooms. Taking into consideration that aspect, we feel that time upto 31/1/2010 can be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the shop rooms on the following conditions: RCR NO.142/2009 4 i). The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the executing court agreeing to surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule shop rooms on or before 31/1/2010 within three weeks from this date. ii). On receipt of the said affidavit, the Rent Control Court or the Executing Court as the case may be shall defer the delivery of the petition schedule shop rooms to 1-2-2010. The revision petitioner shall pay the arrears of rent up to date within one month from this date and future rent as and when falls due till the date of surrender, failing which the Revision Petitioner RCR NO.142/2009 5 will not be entitled to the benefit of this order granting time. The revision Petition is dismissed with the above directions . PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,Judge, P.Q.BARKATH ALI, Judge dpk