IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 140 of 2011() ------------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN R.C.A NO.92 OF 2010 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 21/02/2011 IN R.C.P. NO.28/2008 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,KOCHI DATED 18/10/2010) ...... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS. --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BETTY JOSE, W/O.LATE JOSE PANAKKAL, AGED 66 YEARS, PANAKKAL HOUSE, MANATTPARAMBU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK. 2. SIMI JOSE,S/O.LATE JOSE PANAKKAL,AGED 44 PANAKKAL HOUSE, MANATTPARAMBU, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK. 3. JIMMY JOSE, S/O.LATE JOSE PANAKKAL, AGED 42 YEARS,PANAKKAL HOUSE, MANATTPARAMBU,NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK. 4. RIMMY JOSE, S/O.LATE JOSE PANAKKAL, AGED 40 YEARS,PANAKKAL HOUSE, MANATTPARAMBU,NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VIDHYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------------------------- ITTOOP, S/O.KURUVILA, AGED 54, SANKURIKAL HOUSE, NARAKAL P.O., NARAKAL, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.No.140 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 Order Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Adv.Mr.John Joseph who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of the R.C.R has taken notice as directed by us. We have heard the submissions of Mr.S.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in detail. Mr.Sreekumar submitted that though the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are concurrent, since those findings are rendered on the basis of an incorrect appreciation of the evidence and pleadings, it has to be found that they are illegal, irregular and improper as envisaged under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. All the submissions of Mr.Sreekumar were opposed by Mr.John Joseph. According to him, there is no warrant for interference within the contours of Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. 2. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. On going through RCR 140/11 2 the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, we are convinced that the findings entered by the statutory authorities regarding the tenant's liability to be evicted from the petition schedule premises under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 are reasonable findings based on legal evidence. We do not find any reason to upset the above finding. The R.C.R is liable to be dismissed. 3. Mr.Sreekumar would request for grant of time till 31.12.2011 to vacate the premises. According to him, the revision petitioner is eking out his livelihood by conducting a fast food shop in the petition schedule premises. Unless time is given till 31.12.2011, the revision petitioner will find it extremely difficult to locate another place. The above request is opposed tooth and nail by Mr.John Joseph. He drew our attention to the order of this court in R.C.R.No.184 of 2010 and submitted that under that order the respondent herein has been ordered to be evicted from a building possessed by him as tenant on or before 30.3.2011 and if this court is inclined to grant time to the revision petitioner, the same be only till 30.3.2011. Even though there is some justification for the opposition of Mr.John Joseph to RCR 140/11 3 Mr.Sreekumar's request for time, we feel that there is justification for granting time to the revision petitioner till 31.10.2011. The result of the above discussion is as follows: The R.C.R will stand dismissed confirming the order for eviction. The execution court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings till 31.10.2011 subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioner will file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the execution court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the landlord on or before 31.10.2011 and undertaking further that he will discharge the arrears of rent within one month and will pay occupational charges regularly. We make it clear that the revision petitioner/tenant will get benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd RCR 140/11 4 RCR 140/11 5