IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 RCRev..No.108 of 2010 (A) ------------------------------ RCA.8/2007 of Addl. Rent Control Appellate Authority. RCP.50/1998 of Rent Control Court,Alappuzha. .................... Revision Petitioner/Appellant No.1 -------------------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,S/O.RAMAN NAIR, SNATHOSH BHAVAN,KOMANA MURI, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE,AMABALAPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT NO.2: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.LATE KRISHNA IYER, TC NO.5/1984,WARRIAM,KOWADIYAR WARD, THURUTHUMOOLA MURI,PEROORKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. N.KUMARAN NAIR,AJITHA NIVAS, KOMANA MURI,AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.108 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J In this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, the tenant challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. As for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, we notice that even before the Appellate Authority, eviction on the above ground was not seriously challenged. Therefore, without any hesitation, we straight away confirm the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) observing that the revision petitioner will have R. C. R. No.108 of 2010 -2- two months time from today for getting that order vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11(2)(c) and moving the Rent Control Court with appropriate application. 2. The respondent/landlord is a lawyer. The need which he projected was that he wants to set up his law practice in the petition schedule building which is situated at Ambalappuzha which is 20 kilometres away from his native village Chennithala. As PW1, he gave evidence to the effect that he is presently practising at Thiruvananthapuram. His wife is presently employed at Chennithala. Despite searching cross examination, PW1/the landlord stood firm on his claim that he wants to come over to Ambalappuzha and set up practice. R. C. R. No.108 of 2010 -3- 3. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that evidence has been appreciated by them properly. Under the statutory scheme, the Appellate Authority is the final fact finding court and we are of the view that the finding by that authority that the need projected by PW1/the landlord is a bona fide one does not suffer from any infirmity. This means that within the contours of Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, there is no reason for interference with the Appellate Authority's judgment. 4. As a last plea, Sri.R.Azad Babu requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises since, according to him, the revision petitioner is R. C. R. No.108 of 2010 -4- eking out his livelihood from his provision shop business which is being conducted in the petition schedule building. We are not inclined to grant so much of time to the revision petitioner. At the same, even as we confirm the eviction order and dismiss the RCR, there will be a direction to the execution court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 30th November, 2010 subject to the following conditions:- The revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the execution court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent on or before 30/11/10. It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent as R. C. R. No.108 of 2010 -5- found by the authorities below will be discharged within two months from today and also that occupational charges with effect from 1st June, 2010 will be paid at the rate of Rs.100/- per mensem as and when the same falls due to the respondent. It is needless to mention that if affidavit as directed above is not filed, the revision petitioner will not get the benefit of time granted as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-