IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 214 of 2009 --------------------------- RCA.4/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM RCP.12/2007 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPNDENT IN RCP -------------------------------------------------- MADHAVAN RAJAPPAN, KANJIRATHIL HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN RCP ---------------------------------------------------------- P.B.PARAMESWARAN, PUNNASSERRIL ILLOM THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.214 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 ORDER Surendra Mohan, J This is a tenant's revision challenging the concurrent orders of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. The respondent had filed RCP No.12/07 before the Rent Control Court, Kottayam seeking eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground that he needed the premises for the bona fide own occupation of his wife under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. R. C. R. No.214 of 2009 -2- 3. The petition was contested by the tenant alleging that the Rent Control Petition was filed only as a pretext to get more rent for the petition schedule building. The need that was alleged was also disputed as vitiated by mala fides. According to the tenant, the landlord was having substantial income from his employment and various other sources. 4. The Rent Control Court tried the petition on the above pleadings. The evidence consisted of oral testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A5 documents on the side of the landlord and the oral evidence of CPW1 and Exts.B1 to B9 documents for the tenant. 5. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Rent Control Court allowed the petition finding that the need that was put forth was bona fide R. C. R. No.214 of 2009 -3- and that the tenant was not entitled to the benefits of proviso under Section 11(3) of the Act. 6. The tenant challenged the findings of the Rent Control Court in RCA No.4/08 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam. After re-appraisal of the evidence on record, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. The said concurrent findings are assailed in this revision before us. 7. We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner at length. Though it is contended that the need that was put forward is not bona fide, we do not find any ground to differ from the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on this point. It has been further contended that the authorities below seriously erred in not giving the R. C. R. No.214 of 2009 -4- benefit of the protection of Section 11(3) to the tenant. We notice that the tenant is conducting a lodging business in the suburbs of Kottayam and that for this reason alone, the tenant is not entitled to the benefits of the protection of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, we confirm the findings of the authorities below. 8. As his last submission, the counsel for the revision petitioner prayed for the grant of some time to vacate the premises. According to him, a period of one year was necessary to shift his business to some other premises. We do not think that grant of such a long period of time is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, we feel that reasonable time can be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises subject to conditions. The Rent R. C. R. No.214 of 2009 -5- Control Revision is therefore, dismissed confirming the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority. However, the tenant shall be granted time up to 31/03/2010 to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord, subject to the following conditions:- 1) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the execution court within a period of three weeks from today undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord on or before 31/03/2010. 2) The tenant shall pay all arrears of rent due in respect of the tenanted premises to the landlord and shall continue to regularly pay occupational charges for the premises at the current rent rate till he surrenders vacant possession of the premises to the R. C. R. No.214 of 2009 -6- landlord. 9. In the event of default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the execution court shall free to execute the orders of eviction passed by the authorities below. 10. This RCR is dismissed, subject to the above conditions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-