IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 RCRev..No. 48 of 2008 ---------------------------------- RCA.30/2004 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (II ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY), TRIVANDRUM RCP.19/2003 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT (RENT CONTROL COURT),TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION(1943) PVT. LTD., FINANCE HOUSE, NEW NO.8(OLD NO.19), PATULLOS ROAD, MOUNT ROAD, POST BOX NO.425, CHENNAI-600 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR PRABHAKAR RAO. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAISAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, S/O. LATE A.VENKATESWARA IYER,CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT RESIDING AT 123, SIVAKARTHI, SANKAR NAGAR, KAIMANOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.VENKATESWARAN, S/O. V.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, 40/19,THEKKEKOTTA ROAD, MANACAUD POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.T.K.ANANTHA PADMANABHAN FOR CAVEATORS. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.C.R No.48 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. Landlords are the respondents. The first respondent was the owner of the tenanted room which he gifted to the second respondent, his son. The rent control petition was filed under Section 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 (“ Act” for short). Both the Courts concurrently held in favour of the landlords and allowed eviction on both the grounds. Hence, this revision petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly challenges the findings of the authorities below under Section 11 (3) of the Act. (2). The case of the landlords is that, the second respondent herein wants to start a new business in the tenanted room. He is already occupying the first floor of that building where he is running a business. Now, he wants to expand his business by starting business in insurance, investment consultancy etc. The tenant resisted eviction contending that the need urged is only a ruse to evict it . The respondents wanted to evict it and give the room on higher rent to third parties. (3). On the side of the landlords the second respondent was examined as Pw1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. From the side of the RCR 48/2008 -2- counter petitioner CPw1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked. The Commissioner's Report was marked as C1. The authorities below referred to the depositions of the witnesses and also considered the materials on record and held that the bona fide need urged on behalf of the second respondent is genuine. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner attacks the said finding contending that the evidence adduced by it was not properly considered or adverted to by both the authorities. It is contended that the tenant is entitled to get protection under the first proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. It is an admitted position that the second respondent is already in possession of a room in the upstairs. The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority did not consider whether that room was sufficient for accommodating the additional ventures of the second respondent, and, therefore the impugned orders are vitiated, it is submitted. (4). We notice that there is no pleading from the part of the petitioner to support its case under the first proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. From the materials on record it can be seen that the second respondent is doing business in the first floor of the building. Now, he requires the ground floor also to start some new business. The need has been held to be bona fide also. In the absence of any materials or evidence to support the case of the revision petitioner under the first proviso to RCR.48/2008 -3- Section 11 (3) of the Act, the authorities below cannot be blamed for not considering the said aspect. We also notice that there is no material on record to support the case of the tenant on the above point. (5). In the result, the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. (6). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays for some time to vacate the tenanted room. On this point, we heard the learned counsel for the landlords also. Having regard to the facts of the case, the petitioner is granted six months' time from today to vacate the tenanted room, on condition that it files an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Executing Court, undertaking to vacate the premises within six months from today. The undertaking shall be filed within three weeks from today. The revision petitioner shall also deposit the arrears of rent within one month from today. The tenant shall also continue to pay the monthly rent due till the room is vacated. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. MS