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 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 RCRev..No. 95 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.8/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM RCOP.37/2005 of PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- THE KOTTAYAM WHOLE SALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER STORES LTD.NO.K.162, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. MR. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM MR. SUJITH MATHEW JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- FATHIMA BEEVI, W/O.K.P.ABOOTTY, THOYALAKANDI HOUSE, CHIRAKKARA, TELLECHERRY-4, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.P.ABOOTTY, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, KOTTAYAM. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.Revn. No.95 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 O R D E R -------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. This revision under Section 20 is filed by the Kottayam Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd.No:K.162, the tenant in the Rent Control Petition and since in anticipation of the revision the landlady had lodged a caveat, as directed by us Sri. Mohan Jacob George, learned counsel for the respondent took notice and we have heard the submissions of Mr. George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Mr.Mohan Jacob George. Under the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) was confirmed. The need projected by the landlady in the Rent Control Petition was that the building is needed for the conduct of stationery business by her dependent son. Before the Rent Control Court PW1 husband of the landlady and PW2 the dependent son were examined apart from PW3 Advocate Commissioner, RCR.95/2010 2 who conducted a local inspection. Apart from that, evidence from the side of landlady consisted of Exts.A1 to A7. On the side of tenant Society the evidence consisted of documents Exts.P1 to P5 and oral testimonies of CPW1 and 2. Ext.X1 vacancy register was got produced by the accommodation controller for substantiating the plea of the tenant that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3). The report filed by the Commissioner was Ext.C1. 2. We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority. We notice that the findings entered by the authorities that the need is bonafide is a finding entered on the basis of the evidence adduced by PW1 and 2. We also find that the authorities below rightly found that the tenant being a Co-operative Society and not a natural person, is not entitled to protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3). In this jurisdiction under Section 20 this court is not expected to re-appraise evidence and substitute conclusions of fact arrived by the authorities below, especially when the findings are based on evidence on record. 3. Having regard to the contours of jurisdiction under Section 20 we do not find any warrant to interfere RCR.95/2010 3 with the appellate authority's judgment. In other words, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 warranting interference with the impugned judgment. As a last plea Sri.George Poonthottam sought for 18 months time to surrender the premises. The above request was very stiffly opposed by Sri.Mohan Jacob George. He submitted that for want of petition schedule building PW2 is unable to start business even in the first floor of the building which is already taken possession. According to him, the need which is recognised by the authorities below is most genuine and not more than six months time should be granted. We feel that on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case there is justification for granting time till 15.3.2011. We are inclined to grant so much time subject to certain conditions. 4. The result of the above discussion is as follows: Order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is confirmed. Rent Control Revision is dismissed. However, Execution Court is directed not to order delivery of the petition schedule building to the respondent till 15.3.2011 subject to the following conditions:- RCR.95/2010 4 (i). A competent person representing the revision petitioner Society will file an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful possession of the building to the respondent or PW2 on or before 15.3.2011. Through the same affidavit the revision petitioner shall also give an undertaking that they will discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and will pay occupational charges at the current rent rate till they give actual surrender. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted by this order only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb