IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 RCRev..No. 241 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA NO.7/07 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH PARUR. RCP NO.19/05 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 56, S/O. MAKKY, PROPRIETOR, RACHANA STUDIO, ALUVA ROAD, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER --------------- SHAJI LONAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 36, S/O. LONAPPAN, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN IA NO.2189/08 DISMISSED. 29/9/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No.241 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. The petitioner is conducting a studio business in the first floor of the building owned by the landlord. The landlord sought eviction of the petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. However, what survives for consideration in this revision is only the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Act. The bona fide need alleged in the petition was for own occupation for residential purposes. It is averred that the landlord is now residing in a rented house, that there is a hotel run by him in front of the tenanted premises and that it will be more profitable and convenient to occupy the tenanted premises and start living there, so that he can give better attention to the hotel business. The tenant, however, resisted the plea by contending that the bona fide need alleged is only a ruse for eviction and that the landlord has made an attempt to evict him by demanding vacant possession of the building in 1993 alleging that the landlord wants the tenanted premises for textile business. However, the tenant denied the bona fide need as alleged in the notice and sent a reply RCR 241/08 -2- and thereafter the landlord did not pursue the demand by approaching the court by filing a petition. Subsequently, in 1997 he filed a suit evidenced by the plaint produced as Ext.B1 in the case. According to him, the suit was filed seeking an injunction restraining the petitioner herein from making any repairs to the building. He made reference to the pleadings in Ext.B1 to show that even according to the landlord, the building was in such a bad shape and dilapidated condition, that at any time it is likely to fall, that any attempt to make repair to the building will not improve the condition rather accelerate the fall of the building and the tenant was sought to be prevented from making any attempt to repair the building. This plea raised in Ext.B1 plaint is strongly relied on by the petitioner to contend that this is yet another attempt on the part of the landlord to get eviction under a different ground finding that his earlier attempt was not fruitful. According to him, if as stated in Ext.B1 the condition of the building is so bad and no repairs could be effected, how then the landlord be heard to contend that he wants to reside in a building which is in a dilapidated condition after making repairs, when the very repair to the building will cause serious threat to the entire structure and will fall down. 2. The contention as raised, though prima faice appears to be of some force, on a further consideration of the matter from all angle, we find that RCR 241/08 -3- there is no merit in this contention. The ground as urged, i.e. the bonafide need for own occupation for residential purposes, has been appreciated and found in favour of the landlord by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. Thus, there is a concurrent finding regarding the bona fide need. That there is a hotel run by the landlord situated some where near or opposite to the tenanted premises, is not seriously in dispute. If the landlord thoughts living in the tenanted premises, that will only be convenient to him to attend his business activities relating to the hotel. Further, the landlord is residing in a rented premises. True, that a suit was filed earlier, but that will only show that the building requires some extensive repairs. However, if the landlord is able to undertake such repairs with the able expertise of an Engineer by giving necessary support, it cannot be said that the building is beyond repairs. Therefore, as a matter of fact, it is admitted that repairs are to be made to the building before the landlord could reside in the said building. Of course, if the landlord is not doing the repairs within a reasonable time and start occupying the same for residential purpose, necessarily it is open to the tenant to approach the Rent Control Court for necessary orders as enabled by the provisions contained in the Rent Control Act. In so far as there is a concurrent finding of fact which cannot be said to be perverse, we do not find any ground to interfere with RCR 241/08 -4- the said finding as regards the bonafide need. 3. The plea based on the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was repelled by both the authorities below and no serious arguments were pressed before us with regard thereto. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. 4. At this stage of the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a reasonable time to give vacant possession of the premises, especially since his client is running a business in photo studio in the tenanted premises. Having heard both sides and considering the fact that the tenant is in occupation of the premises and doing some business there, we think the request is only genuine. In the result, the Rent Control Revision is dismissed, however, the execution of the order of eviction as affirmed by the Appellate Authority will stand deferred for a period of six months on the following conditions: i) That the entire arrears of rent, if any, shall be deposited before the Execution Court within a period of one month from today and shall also file an affidavit within the said time undertaking to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises on or before the expiry of the period of six months from today, i.e. on or before 29.3.2009. RCR 241/08 -5- ii) that the tenant shall not induct any third party into the premises; iii) that an amount equivalent to the rent towards use and occupation of the building shall be regularly paid by the tenant until vacant possession is given; and iv) that if for any reason the tenant fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, the order of eviction passed by the court below will forthwith become enforceable. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/