IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 107 of 2008() ------------------------ (RCP NO.22/2003 OF THE RENT CONTROLLER TALIPARAMBA RCA NO.137/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY.) : REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ K.P.MOIDU, S/O.R.K.EBRAHIM, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ PALLIPATH KUNHIRAMAN, D/O.USSAINKUTTY, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT IRIKKUR DESOM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. “ THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT SHOWN AS “PALLIPATH KUNHIRAMAN IS CORRECTED AS PALLIPATH KUNHAMINA” VIDE ORDER DATED 8/9/2010 IN I.A. NO.2232/2010 IN RCR NO.107/2008) ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 107 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant, who suffered an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, challenges the same in this revision. The landlady sought eviction under Section 11(3) stating that the petition schedule building is bona fide needed for enabling her brother, who is a dependent on her, to start a textile business therein. The claim was resisted by the tenant contending that the petition is only a ruse for eviction and there is no bonafides in the need projected by the landlady. 2. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller found that the bonafide need projected by the landlady is honest and genuine. It was also found that the tenant has failed to prove the two ingredients to get the protection under the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority concurred with RCR.No.107/2008 2 the view taken by the Rent Control Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has addressed arguments on all the grounds raised in the revision petition. The power of revision is circumscribed under section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. We find no reason to upset the finding entered by the courts below. Hence, this revision fails. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least 9 months time may be granted to the revision petitioner to vacate the tenanted building. Considering all the aspects, we find that the tenant can be granted six months time subject to certain conditions. 5. The result therefore is as follows; i). The revision petition is dismissed. ii). The revision petitioner is granted 9 months time on condition that he files an affidavit before the Rent Control Court/Executing Court within three weeks from today undertaking that he will surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building within nine months from today and undertaking further through the same affidavit that arrears of rent due as on date will be paid within one month from today and occupation charges RCR.No.107/2008 3 at the current rent rate will be paid as and when the same falls due. We clarify that the tenant will get the benefit of time allowed as above only if affidavit as directed above is filed and the undertakings therein are complied with. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk