IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 410 of 2010() ------------------------ CRA.15/2009 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONERS IN RCR/ RESPONDENTS IN RCA/RESPONDENT RCP ------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA HANDLOOM FABRICS MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, A.BARRACKS, JANAPATH, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. MANAGER, HANDLOOM HOUSE, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER~ SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT IN RCR/APPELLANT IN RCA/ PETITIONER IN RCP -------------------------------- P.SUBRAMANIA PILLAY, T.C.38/1088, MARAKADA ROAD, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.410 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The plea for eviction was resisted on the ground that there is a stipulation in the rent deed that on expiry of the period of five years originally fixed it can be extended at the option of the tenant. The extended period was to expire on 31/3/2007. According to the landlord, the tenant did not exercise the option to get the period further extended and thus the petition was filed. The tenant, which is a Society, contended that in fact before the expiry of the period of five years i.e. on or before 31-3--2007 itself the tenant had exercised the option to continue the tenancy and to get it extended for another five years and also agreed to pay the enhanced rent which was to be paid as per the terms of the original rent agreement. 2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the tenant exercised that option on or before 31/3/2007. In this RCR.No.410/2010 2 connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner points out that the letter expressing intention to have the tenancy extended for a period of five years was sent on 31/3/2007 itself. In support of that contention, a copy of the letter and also copy of the postal receipt are produced which will show that the letter was sent on 31/3/2007 itself. Another letter dated 31/3/2007 was also produced by the tenant. Since there was a dispute as to whether the letter was actually sent on 31/3/2007, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has produced all the concerned files in the office of the tenant Society maintained regularly in the course of its business activities. The running file pertaining to the sending of communications, etc. has been produced to show that the letter dated 30/3/2007, which bears dispatch No.174 in the running file of the petitioner society, was sent on 31/3/2007. The letter corresponding to Ext.B1 is seen in the running file and corresponding file maintained by the tenant society where it is seen that the letter was sent on 31/3/2007 itself. The Register maintained by the Society itself has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Copies of the letters sent by the tenant Society are RCR.No.410/2010 3 seen kept in order in the due course of business properly and regularly. 3. We are fully convinced that the tenant Society did exercise the option for extending the lease for a further period of 5 years from 1-4-2007 till 31/3/2012. As such the landlord is not entitled to claim eviction before the expiry of the period which stood extended till 31/3/2012 in view of the inhibition contained in Section 11(9) of the Act. The learned counsel for the tenant has also pointed out that the rent which was payable by the tenant for the period subsequent to 31/3/2007 has been paid regularly. In view of what is stated above the order of eviction passed against the tenant is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner is set aside and the rent control petition stands dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk