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. 43 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.19/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE Authority , TRIVANDRUM RCP.64/2008 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------- KAMCHI CHANDRAN, SASIKALA POLY CLINIC, TC 26/1797, G.P.O.LANE, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ ALEKUTTY GEORGE, T.C. 26/1794, G.P.O.LANE, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. G.S.RAGHUNATH 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. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 43 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan , J. The tenant is in revision. The order of eviction concurrently passed by the courts below on the ground of bona fide need is challenged in this revision. The landlady aged about 77 years along with her husband, who is now stated to be 83 years, are residing in the up stair portion of the building. The petition schedule building is in the ground floor of that building where the respondent is conducting a Poly Clinic. The very need projected by the landlady is that she and her husband are very aged persons and that it is very difficult for them to climb upstairs and come down because of their ailments. 2. Sri.Thoufeek Ahamed The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that an offer, that the up stair portion where presently the landlady and her husband are in occupation could be given to the tenant if the tenant vacates the petition schedule building situated in the ground floor, was made as per RCR.No.43/2011 2 Ext.A1 which preceded the rent control petition and so accepting that offer the tenant may be given the up stair portion. 3. Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel for the landlady has pointed out that an offer was made long prior to the issuance of notice and that what was stated in the notice was only that the offer which was made prior to the notice was not accepted by the tenant. The learned counsel further submits that it was only because the tenant did not accede to the request made by the landlady, the notice happened to be sent. Even according to the landlady, no offer was made by the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building earlier. Taking note of these aspects and considering the genuine need projected by the landlady, the authorities came to the conclusion that she is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the landlady submit that the husband of the revision petitioner is a very reputed doctor of SUT Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and so the revision petitioner does not actually require the petition schedule building. Be that as it may the the revision petitioner did not mount the witness box to deny the need projected by the landlady. No claim was RCR.No.43/2011 3 made by the tenant claiming protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. Sitting in revision we are not expected to reappraise the evidence to take a different conclusion. We find no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the order of eviction passed by the courts below. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a fervent appeal to grant one year's time to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building . This request is stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the landlady stating that landlady and her husband are in a very precarious condition as they are aged and sufferring from ailments and that if time is granted that would be highly prejudicial to the landlord. However, considering the fact that the tenant is conducting a Poly Clinic in the petition schedule building, we are of the opion that she may require some time to shift her clinic to another building. Thus, we are inclined to grant time to the tenant till 30/6/2011 to surrender the petition schedule building subject to certain conditions. 6. The result therefore is as follows; i). The revision petition is dismissed. RCR.No.43/2011 4 ii). The revision petitioner is granted time till 30/6/2011 to vacate the petition schedule premises on condition that she files an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking that she will surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building on or before 30/6/2011 from today and undertaking further through the same affidavit that arrears of rent if any due as on date will be paid within one month from today and occupation charges at the current rent rate will be paid as and when the same falls due. We clarify that the tenant will get benefit of time granted as above, only if affidavit as directed above is filed and the undertakings therein are complied with. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk