IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 RCRev..No. 288 of 2011(A) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/05/2011 IN RCA 18/2007 & RCA.17/2007 of II ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM RCP.1/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR. RAJARAM, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, LEKSHMI SADANAM, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. SURESH SAIT, S/O. RAJARAM, HOUSE NO.36, BENTHANVADI, BELLAVADI.P.O., KHANPUR TALUK, SANGLEE DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT ACID SHOP, KAMPALAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM BRIDGE. 3. YOONUS KUNJU, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, PALLIVELIL VEEDU, VADAKKUMTHALA KIZHAKKUM MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. ASHRUF, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, IKKARA VEEDU, MARUTHUKULANGARA, THEKKUM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 5. RAHUMATH, D/O. ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, IKKARA VEEDU, MARUTHUKULANGARA, THEKKUM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 6. MADHAVAN, PILLAI, KIDAKKOTTU VEEDU, EDAKKULANGARA.P.O., PULIYOOR VANCHI KIZHAKKUM MURI THODIYOOR VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 7. BRAHMA DAS, S/O. AYYAPPAN, MUTHALISSERIL VEEDU, MARUTHOORKULANGARA THEKKUM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 8. HAMEED KUNJU, VARAMPEL PUTHEN VEEDU, KOZHIKODE MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 9. MUHAMMED KUNJU, S/O.ALIYARKUNJU, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUKOLAPARAMBIL VEEDU MARUTHOORKULANGARA,THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. RCRev..No. 288 of 2011(A) : 2 : 10. ASHRAF, S/O. ALIYARKUNJU, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUKOLAPARAMBIL VEEDU MARUTHOORKULANGARA,THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. 11. RAMLA BEEVI, D/O. ALIYARUKUNJU, AGED 44 YEARS,CHERUKOLAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MARUTHOORKULANGARA,THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. 12. AYISH BEEVI, D/O. ALIYARKUNJU, AGED 43 YEARS, CHERUKOLAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MARUTHOORKULANGARA,THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. 13. RUKIYA BEEVI, W/O.ALIYARUKUNJU, AGED 69 YEARS, CHERUKOLAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MARUTHOORKULANGARA,THEKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS : 1ST RESPONDENT IN RCA.18/07& PETITIONER IN RCP, RESPONDENTS 2,3,4 & 10 IN RCA.1707 & RESPONDENTS 4,9,12,14,15,16 IN RCA.18/07 & RESPONDENTS 3, 8, 11, 17, 18 & 19 IN RCP -------------------------- 1. GEORGE JOHN, S/O. T.K.YOHANNAN, ANDUVA VEETTIL, VADAKKUMTHALA MEKKUM MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,PIN-690518. 2. SHIHAB, S/O. ALIYARUKUNJU, CHERUKOLAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MARUTHOORKULANGARA THEKKUMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. PIN-690518. 3. HAKKIM, S/O. ALIYARUKUNJU, CHERUKOLAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MARUTHOORKULANGARA THEKKUMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. PIN-690518. 4. NOUSHAD, S/O.ALIYARUKUNJU, CHERUKOLAPARAMBIL VEEDU,MARUTHOORKULANGARA THEKKUMURI,KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. PIN-690518. 5. ISMAIL KUNJU, S/O.HAMEED KUNJU, VALANTHARA MANZIL, PADANAYARKULANGARA, VADAKKUMMURI, KARUGAPPALLY TALUK-690518. 6. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. SULAIMAN KUNJU, VAPPIATHU VEDU, PADANAYARKULANGARA VADAKKUM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE PIN-690518. RCRev..No. 288 of 2011(A) : 3 : 7. KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. SOMAVEARMA, KOIPPALLY MADAM, CHANGANKULANGARA WARD, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. PIN-690518. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR CAVEATOR SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ===================== R.C.R. NO. 288 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of December 2011 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose,J. This revision is filed by the tenant under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings(Lease & Rent Control)Act, 1965 against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease & Rent Control)Act (ground of reconstruction). Even though various grounds have been raised and Shri P.K.Muhammed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed submissions based on all those grounds, having gone through the impugned judgment as well as the order of the Rent Control Court, we R.C.R. 288/2011 2 are of the view that the findings entered therein that the building requires reconstruction and the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iv) is a correct finding, which is not tainted by illegality, irregularity or impropriety . One point which is highlighted before us by Shri P.K. Muhammed was that as the tenants of room Nos. 4, 5 and 11 are conducting hotel business, a specific direction should be issued by this Court that in the reconstructed building, they should be provided space in the ground floor itself. According to Mr. Muhammed, the landlord has actually agreed to re-induct those tenants in the ground floor itself. 2. It is a statutory right of a tenant who is evicted on the ground under Section 11(4)(iv) to be re-inducted into a portion of the re-constructed building in such a manner that the tenant will be able to enjoy more or less the same advantage and facilities which he was enjoying in the building which was occupied by him. The exact identity of R.C.R. 288/2011 3 the portion into which the tenants will be re-inducted is an aspect which can be decided at the post reconstruction stage. 2. One last submission made before us by Mr.Muhammed was that the revision petitioner’s should be granted at least one year’s time. His request is very strictly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. But having regard to the nature of the business carried on by the petitioners, we feel that the petitioners can be granted time till 30/9/2012 to surrender the premises subject to the condition that each of them shall pay occupational charges to the Landlord at 50% more than the rent, which they are presently paying. On condition that the revision petitioner will be liable to pay occupational charges at 50% more than the present rent rate every month to the respondents and on further condition that if they have not surrendered possession on or before 30/9/2012, the Execution Court can order delivery R.C.R. 288/2011 4 forthwith, even as we confirm the impugned judgment, we direct the Execution court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 30/9/2012. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE ks.