IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 238 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.57/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY THRISSUR RCP.35/2001 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ THANKAMANI @ LAKSHMY, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.V.VELAYUDHAN, LIGHT WASHING HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, WADAKKANCHERRY, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT PETITIONER ------------------------- VIRAVUNNY, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.OKKAYIL KUNHAVU, ERANELLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN-680582. ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 238 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant, an old lady, is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. In earlier litigations between the parties, the petitioner denied the landlord's title and that the issue was finally decided in favour of the landlord the predecessor in interest. Even though in the present rent control petition also the same issue was raked up, the learned statutory authorities have rightly decided the issue in favour of the landlord. 2. Though bona fides of the need was disputed and the allegation regarding the arrears of rent was also disputed, the Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the need was bona fide. Even the protection of the second proviso to subs section (3) of RCR.No.238/2011 2 Section 11 claimed by the revision petitioner was decided against the revision petitioner on the reason that the purpose of lease was residential. 3. The Appellate Authority on making a reappraisal of the evidence would confirm the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismiss the appeal. 4. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri. C.A.Anoop, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of all the above grounds. According to him, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties justifying invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. 5. Per contra, Sri.T.M.Chandran, who has already lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent/landlord, submitted that there is no warrant at all for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority in view of the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. 6. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the RCR.No.238/2011 3 Appellate Authority. According to us, the findings entered therein regarding the existence of grounds under Section 11 (3) and 11 (2)(b) are reasonable findings founded on evidence on record. The contention raised by the petitioner denying the title of the landlord was rightly repelled by the statutory authorities as the said issue has already attained finality. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority. We dismiss this revision petition in limine. 7. After we made our decision known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.Anoop requested that at least two years time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. Mr.Chandran would oppose the above request very stiffly. Having considered the totality of the circumstances attending on this case, we feel that there is justification for granting to the revision petitioner time till 31/3/2012 for surrendering the premises subject to certain conditions. 8. Hence, the Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the building in question till 31/3/2012 subject RCR.No.238/2011 4 to the following conditions; The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent on or before 31/3/2012. She undertakes through the same affidavit to discharge arrears of rent, as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, within one month from today and to pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate of Rs.20/- per month till actual surrender is made. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time as allowed above only if she files affidavit and honours the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk