IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 223 of 2010() ------------------------ (R.C.A. NO.18/2008 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KOLLAM RCP NO.1/2007 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KOTTARAKKARA) REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL KHAREEM NIAZ MANZIL, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SOORYA, KOODUPARA PADINJATTETHIL, MUSLIM STREET, PADINJATTINKARA KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 223 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is an order of eviction concurrently passed by the statutory authorities on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlady, who has master's degree in Business Administration apart from being computer literate, is that the building in question, which incidentally is the only building belonging to her, is needed bona fide for occupation by her for the purpose of conducting Business Consultancy and Internet Cafe. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant, also claiming that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial the evidence consisted of Exhibits A1 to A5, B1 to B3, PWs1 and 2 and RW1. PW1 was none other than the landlady. The learned Rent Control Court, on evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide. RCR.No.223/2010 2 The Court below also concluded that the tenant was unsuccessful in showing that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed. 2. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the tenant and reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusion of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very persuasive arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. Mr.Suresh Kumar submitted that the landlady's mother is presently having vacant possession of another building, which is kept idle. If there is an element of bona fides in the need projected by the landlady, she could start the proposed venture in that building. As a last plea, Sri.Suresh Kumar also requested that this Court may be inclined to grant at least one year's time to surrender the petition schedule building. RCR.No.223/2010 3 4. All the submissions of Sri.Suresh Kumar were stiffly resisted by Mr..R.T.Pradeep, who has taken notice as directed by us. Mr.Pradeep submitted that it is an extremely urgent necessity of the landlady which has now been recognized by the authorities below. The learned counsel submitted that the tenant is capable of taking on lease a building which is available just opposite to the petition schedule building. The learned counsel very stiffly opposed the request for grant of time. He submitted that there is no justification for granting more than four months time. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. We find that the findings entered by the statutory authorities are reasonable findings entered on the basis of evidence available on record. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate authority. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed. However, we are of the view that, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances attending RCR.No.223/2010 4 on this case, there is justification for granting 9 months time i.e. time till 30/4/2011 to the revision petitioner to surrender the petition schedule building. 6. The result is therefore as follows; 1). The RCR will stand dismissed confirming the order of eviction. The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent/landlady till 30/4/2011 subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent/landlady on or before 30/4/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month will also be paid promptly as and when the same falls due till such time actual surrender is given to the landlady. ii). Affidavit as directed above shall be filed within three weeks from today. The revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted above RCR.No.223/2010 5 only if affidavit as directed above is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk