IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RCRev..No. 295 of 2008 & CAVEAT O.P.NO.907 OF 2008 ------------------------ RCA.25/2007 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORIT,KOLLAM RCP.3/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- ABDULLA KUNJU, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. YOSAF KUNJU, SULEKHA STORES, KAVALPURA, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.A.P.LALY @ LALY VINCENT RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER -------------------- NADIRA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL RAZAK, INCHAKKAL VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA.P.O, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R1 SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH CAVEAT O.P.NO.907/2008 ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 295 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. Tenant is the revision petitioner. He is faced with an order of eviction passed under Section 22(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent) Control Act. The tenant's son who was the original owner of the building had borrowed amount from the landlord and finding it difficult to discharge the debt, the tenanted premises was sold by a registered sale deed in favour of the landlord; but he continued to be in possession, after paying rent. Though the landlord - tenant relationship was disputed, it was found that in the absence of any challenge to the sale deed executed, it is beyond doubt that the dispute raised cannot be said to be bona fide. 2. Turning to the question under Section 11(2)(b) both the court below found that rent is in arrears. Under Section 11(3) the bona fide need put forth by the landlord was for own occupation. This was also found in favour of the landlord. Being a finding on question of fact, apparently we do not find any reason to disturb the said finding. R.C.R. 295/2008 :2: 3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner fairly submitted that the contentions raised may be permitted to be withdrawn; but pleaded for a larger time to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises. Since the landlord has filed a caveat we had the benefit of hearing his counsel also. 4. Having heard both sides and in view of the fact that the tenant is doing a provisional store business in the petition schedule premises for a quite long time, it is only appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a reasonable time be granted to him to surrender vacant possession of the premises. Accordingly, we dismiss the revision petition and grant twelve months' time to the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building on the following conditions: i. That the revision petitioner/tenant shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Rent Control Court agreeing to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises on or before 4.12.2009, along with the entire arrears of rent as on today, within a period of three weeks from today. ii. The tenant shall continue to pay an amount equivalent ot the monthly rent by way of compensation for use and occupation on the due R.C.R. 295/2008 :3: date until vacant possession is surrendered. (iii) The tenant shall not induct any third party into possession of the petition schedule premises in the mean time. If the tenant comply with the above conditions, execution of the order of eviction will stand deferred till 4.12.2009. If he commits any default in complying with any one of the above said conditions, the order of execution shall become enforceable forthwith. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-