IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 220 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RCR.255/2008 Dated 05/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC --------------------------------------- ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADAR, C.C.11/1076, KAPIRITHURUTH DESAM,.FORTCOCHIN, KOCHI-682 001. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- MRS.P.M.NABEESA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMANKUTTY, MATHULAKATH HOUSE, KAPIRITHURUTH DESAM, FORT KOCHI-682 001. ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.PAUL PARAKAL SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.220 of 2010 in R. C. R. No.255 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J We allow the R.P. to the extent of substituting the last para (para 6) in our judgment by the following paragraph:- We, therefore, are in agreement with the authorities below that the need for additional accommodation projected by the petitioner is a bona fide one. The result is that the RCR is dismissed. The Appellate Authority has not specifically considered the question of comparative advantages and hardships. But, we notice that no proper pleadings in this context is R. P. No.220 of 2010 -2- raised by the tenant. We have re-appreciated the evidence. We find that the advantages which the landlady may gain by getting the order of eviction will outweigh the hardships to be sustained by the tenant because of the order of eviction. Since we are deciding the issue of the tenant's eligibility for protection of the proviso to sub section 10 of section 11 i.e. the question of comparative advantages and hardships ourselves instead of remitting the matter back to the Appellate Authority for entering a specific finding, we feel that an unusually long period can be granted to the revision petitioner/tenant for surrendering the premises. Hence, we are inclined to grant time till 31st July, 2010. However, such time will be R. P. No.220 of 2010 -3- granted only subject to the following conditions:- 1) The entire arrears of rent as alleged in the Rent Control Petition inclusive of the rent due up to date shall be paid by the revision petitioner within two months. 2) Occupational charges at the current rent rate should also be paid till date of actual surrender as and when the same falls due. 3) An affidavit incorporating the undertaking to surrender the premises on 31/07/10 will be filed by the revision petitioner on or before 25/03/10. It is clarified that unless affidavit as directed above is filed the revision petitioner will not be entitled for benefit of time granted as above. R. P. No.220 of 2010 -4- R.P is allowed to the extent of modifying the judgment as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-