IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 115 of 2009() ------------------------ BRC.1/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM RCP.34/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMESWARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN ACHARY, RESIDING AT NO.MC 676(FORMER MC 717) KOCHAPPALLI LANE, THAMARAKKULAM WARD, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SOMAN SRI.R.SELVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ JYOTHIKUMARI, D/O.BADRAPANI AMMA FROM KOPPARA VEEDU, KANNIMAL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT JYOTHIS, BHAVANA NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- R.C.R. 115 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 9, 2009 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this revision, the defeated tenant challenges the order of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction under sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which is confirmed by the appellate authority. 2. The landlady/revision respondent filed rent control petition before the Rent Control Court, Kollam seeking eviction under sec.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act i.e. on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need of the landlady. The tenant/revision petitioner resisted the claim contending that there are no arrears of rent and that the landlady does not require the premises for her occupation. 3. The landlady was examined as PW.1 and she produced Exts.A1 to A9 before the Rent Control Court. The tenant was R.C.R. 115 of 2009 2 examined as CPW.1 and Exts.B1 series were marked on his side. 4. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of evidence found that no rent is in arrears and rejected the claim for eviction under sec.11(2)(b) of the Act, but found that the landlady needs the building for her occupation and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 of the Act and ordered eviction under sec.11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said finding of the Rent Control Court. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts. 5. Sri S. Soman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant vehemently argued that the bona fide need put forward by the landlady is only a pretext to evict him from the premises, that PW.3, the husband of the landlady, is not competent to conduct any electrical consultancy service as claimed by them and that the petition schedule building is not suitable to conduct any such trade. We are unable to agree with the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the R.C.R. 115 of 2009 3 revision petitioner. P.W.2, the husband of the landlady, is a retired chief engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, which is admitted by the tenant. PW.1 and PW.2 testified before the Rent Control Court that they are conducting an electrical consultancy service in a rented room. The Rent Control Court has chosen to believe the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and found that the bona fide need put forward by the landlady is genuine. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the said findings of the Rent Control Court. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both parties before the Rent Control Court and the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority invoking jurisdiction under sec.20 of the Act. That being so, the revision has to be dismissed. 6. Sri Soman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that atleast one year time may be granted to vacate the premises. We feel that it would be reasonable to grant time till December 31, 2009 to vacate the premises, on the following R.C.R. 115 of 2009 4 conditions, as the revision petitioner is residing in the petition schedule building:- i. The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court stating that he will surrender peaceful possession ofs the building on or before 31.12.2009. On filing such an affidavit, the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court shall adjourn the execution after 1.1.2010. ii. The petitioner shall pay arrears of rent till that date before the Rent Control Court. This Rent Control Revision is dismissed with the above directions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-