IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 59 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.25/2008 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD RCP.34/2006 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- SAHADEVAN,SON OF CHAMI, RESIDING AT VENNAKKARA,PIRAYIRIAMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 019. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SMT.O.K.SANTHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RAHNA SULTHAN, D/O.LATE KITHAT MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT 19/185 (1) WEST YAKKARA.P.O. PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. SHERINA, W/O.LATE KITHAR MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT 19/185 (1) WEST YAKKARA.P.O. PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. FATHIMA TASLIM,D/O.LATE KITHAR MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT 19/185 (1) WEST YAKKARA.P.O. PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. SHAHUL HAMEED,S/O. LATE KITHAR MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT 19/185 (1) WEST YAKKARA.P.O. PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 001. ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 59 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant who has suffered order of eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) is the revision petitioner. The need projected by the landlady is that the petition schedule building is bona fide required for accommodating her daughter for starting a business therein. It is contended by the landlady that the tenant has put up a new building very near to the petition schedule building by name 'Century Plaza' and he is actually conducting business in a room situated in that building. 2. The claim was resisted by the tenant contending that the need alleged is not bona fide. The ground under Section 11(4)(iii) was also resisted by the tenant contending that he is not in possession of any other building as alleged by the landlady. RCR. 59 of 2011 -2- 3. The learned Rent Controller considering the oral and documentary evidence ordered eviction on both the grounds. The Appellate Authority concurred with the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. 4. Sri.D.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the tenant submits that when the case was originally listed for trial the landlord sought adjournment and that was allowed by the trial court and thereafter the landlady and one witness were examined and the case was posted for evidence of the tenant. On that day, the tenant could not be present in court as he had to take his daughter, who was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, to a hospital at Coimbatore and thus sought time for giving evidence on his behalf. The court granted two days time. Though the tenant was under the belief that he can come back within two days, he could not return because his daughter had to be admitted in the hospital and so no evidence could be RCR. 59 of 2011 -3- adduced on his side. Thus, according to the learned counsel, it was almost an ex parte order that was passed by the Rent Control Court. The learned counsel further submits that though these grounds were canvassed in appeal, those grounds were not accepted by the Appellate Authority. Thus the learned counsel submits that the finding entered by the two courts are erroneous and unsound and as such it requires reconsideration. 5. The learned counsel for the landlady would vehemently argue that here is a tenant who is actually in the place of a big landlord having another new building of his own by name Century Plaza. It is contended that the building by name Century Plaza is situated very near to the petition schedule building and that the tenant is actually conducting business in one of the rooms situated in that building. The learned counsel further submitted that the tenant is having buildings at two other places also and there RCR. 59 of 2011 -4- also he is conducting business. The learned counsel Sri.D. Krishna Prasad submits that there is no evidence to show that those buildings belong to the tenant. But on going through the evidence it could be seen that the fact that the tenant is having other buildings was not seriously objected to. The Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C-1 report has given details regarding the other buildings held and possessed by the tenant. 6. Though it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the tenant that the tenant could not give evidence before the Rent Control Court as his daughter was hospitalised no document was produced either before the Rent Control Court or before the Appellate Authority to canvass for the position that there was justifiable reason for his absence and inability to adduce evidence before the trial court. In the absence of any such evidence it is too late in the day for the tenant to contend that he was actually RCR. 59 of 2011 -5- prevented from giving evidence before the Rent Control Court. 7. The learned counsel for the tenant has also argued that PW-2, for whose need the building is sought to be evicted is actually abroad with her husband and that she does not actually intend to come back for starting a business and that the need projected is only a pretext for eviction. The daughter of the landlady (PW-2) has however chosen to mount the box to give evidence regarding the need that she actually intends to start business as stated in the petition. The evidence so given by PW-2 was accepted by the two authorities below. Therefore, we are not inclined to upset that finding. In view of what is stated above, the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) confirmed by the Appellate Authority cannot be upset by this court sitting in revision. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the RCR. 59 of 2011 -6- orders passed by the two statutory authorities. The result is that this revision petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the tenant may be granted one year time to vacate the premises. The request is opposed by the learned counsel for the landlord. We notice that the rent now being paid by the tenant is only Rs.300/- per month. However, we feel that the tenant can be granted time till 31-12-2011 for surrendering the premises subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be, within three weeks from today undertaking to put the landlord back in possession of the petition schedule premises on or before 31-12-2011 and undertaking further through the same affidavit that the entire arrears of rent due as on date will be paid within one month from today RCR. 59 of 2011 -7- and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month with effect from 1-2-2011 without fail on the 1st of every month till actual surrender is made. We clarify that the revision petitioner tenant will get the benefit of time allowed as above only if the affidavit as directed above is filed and the undertakings therein are complied with. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-