IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 RCRev..No. 84 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.177/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE RCP.11/2002 of PRL.M.C. AND RENT CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE-II .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS. ----------------------------------------------- M/S. HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEAR SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS. ------------------------- 1. P.T.AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. PALLIPPATTU THAMBAN RAYS JAHI, CHERIYA MUNDAM AMSOM, THALAKADATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AYISHABI, D/O. MUKRIYUAKATH AHAMMED HAJI CHERIYA MUNDAM AMSOM, THALAKADATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Rent Control Revision No. 84 of 2008 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 O R D E R BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. The revision petitioner is the tenant. Respondents are the land lords. They are co-owners of the scheduled premises. The land lords moved the application for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority upheld their claim. Hence, this revision by the tenant. 2. According to the land lords, they require the scheduled building for starting a jewellery business. They are experienced businessmen. They have the financial capacity to start the same. The area in question is suitable for the said business. There is a cluster of such shops in the area. 3. The tenant resisted the application contending that the respondents/land lords wanted to enhance the rent and since the rate of rent demanded was exorbitant, the demand was not conceded. Therefore, the Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondents/land lords. The need urged is only a ruse to evict the R.C.R.No.84/2008 -: 2 :- tenant and they have no experience to run the proposed business in jewellery. There are no other buildings available in the locality for the petitioner to shift its business, it is submitted. Before the Rent Controller, the first respondent was examined as PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. An officer of the petitioner was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked from its side. The Commissioner's report was marked as Ext.C1. As mentioned earlier, all the contentions of the tenant were overruled and eviction was ordered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued two points before us. First point is that the land lords do not have any experience in the business proposed to be conducted by them in the tenanted premises. The said point has been considered by the authorities below. They noticed that the owners of the building are experienced businessmen and, therefore, they will be able to manage jewellery business also. Secondly, it was contended that there are rooms vacant in the first floor of the building and if the land lords wanted to start the business, they could start there. The said point was also considered by the authorities below. It was found that the ground floor is more suitable for running the said business. To arrive at the said finding, reliance was placed on the R.C.R.No.84/2008 -: 3 :- Commissioner's report also. We notice that the said finding is a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed by us. 5. Since both the above grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are untenable, R.C.R is dismissed. But the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to vacate the premises. Having regard to the facts of the case, revision petitioner is granted six months time from today to vacate the tenanted premises on condition that it files an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the execution court to vacate the premises within six months from today. The undertaking in this regard shall be filed within three weeks from today. Arrears of rent remaining unpaid will be paid within one month from today. The monthly rent shall be paid from time to time till the tenanted building is vacated. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ms