IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 RCRev..No. 275 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.67/2007 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.26/2006 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... (S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, PALATHURUTHIL FOAM FURNITURE, OPP. ST.GEORGE U.P.SCHOOL, CHAMBAKKARA, KOCHI 682 317, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------- 1. K.V.ANTONY, S/O.LATE K.A.VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS, KANJINAPILLY HOUSE, PUNITHURA P.O., KOCHI. 2. ANNIE VARGHESE, W/O.LATE K.A.VARGHESE, AGED 63 YEARS, KANJINAPILLY HOUSE, PUNITHURA P.O., KOCHI. ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.2503/08 IN RCR 275/2008 DISMISSED. 7/11/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.C.R No.275/2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings entered by the authorities below, the tenant has filed this revision invoking Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. The eviction petition filed under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act was allowed. The building is required for the bona fide need of the son of the land lady who is the first respondent herein. The building was let out by the father of the first respondent in the year 2001 and after his death, the petition for eviction has been filed for the son to start a textile business and ready-made garment shop in the building. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the landlady who appeared on caveat. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below suffered from legal infirmities, we are satisfied that the grounds pleaded have been clearly proved in evidence. PW.1's evidence R.C.R No.275/2008 -:2:- shows that he proposes the conduct of business to augment the income of the family. Hence, the bona fide need stands proved, in the absence of any vitiating circumstances. The tenant could not prove the aspects to claim benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Apart from that in view of the concurrent findings entered by the authorities below, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority. 4. At this point, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a larger time is allowed, he will withdraw the contentions, which we allow. The learned counsel pleaded for grant of one year's time. Considering the fact that the tenant is conducting business, especially in furniture, and that he will have to be given sufficient time to vacate the premises to find out an alternate premises, we give eight months time from today to vacate the premises on the following conditions:- i. The petitioner herein shall give an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Execution Court agreeing to surrender vacant possession of the premises on or before the expiry of eight months and such an undertaking shall be given within a period of three weeks from today, and he shall also deposit the entire arrears of rent, R.C.R No.275/2008 -:3:- if any, within the aforesaid period of three weeks. ii. The petitioner shall continue to pay the amount equivalent to the monthly rent for use and occupation, until vacant possession of the premises is surrendered to the landlady. iii. No third party shall be inducted into the premises. In case of failure to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below will forthwith become enforceable or otherwise the same shall stand deferred for eight months. The R.C.R is disposed of as above. (P.R. Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms