IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 52 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.20/2005 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALAPPUZHA. RCP.50/2001 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/LEGAL HEIR ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHIBI FRANCIS, KUTHUR VEEDU, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): RRESPONDENTS & APPELLANTS 3 & 4/LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT & LEGAL HEIRS OF PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- 1. REKHA HARILAL, KAILAS, OPPOSITE URBAN BANK, PITCHU JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. ARUN HARILAL, KAILAS, OPPOSITE URBAN BANK, PITCHU JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3. P.J.MARIAMMA, MAVELITHAYYIL, OMANAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. 4. JOJIMOL BAIJU, W/O.BIJU, RAILWAY QUARTERS, NO.31/86, MYSORE. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 52 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The legal heir of the original tenant is in revision. The order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3). The need projected by the respondents/landlords was that the petition schedule building is required for accommodating the daughter of the original landlady for conducting a beauty parlor. The original landlady died. Her legal heirs including Rekha Harilal, for whose need the building was sought to be evicted, were subsequently impleaded. Since the need was for Smt.Lekha Harilal, the daughter of the landlady, the need subsists even after the death of the original landlady. Now, Rekha Harilal is one of the landlords. The original tenant died and her legal heirs also have been brought on record. The order of eviction was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed RCR.No.52/2011 2 arguments on all the grounds stated in the revision petition. But, we are not persuaded to accept those arguments to upset the concurrent findings entered by the courts below. Hence, the revision petition must necessarily fail. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that one year time may be granted to the revision petitioner to vacate the petition schedule building. Having anxiously considered the request, we are of the view that the tenant can be granted 9 months time from today to vacate the petition schedule building but subject to certain conditions. 4. The result therefore is as follows; i). The revision petition is dismissed. ii). The tenant(legal heirs of the original tenant) shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court/Executing Court within three weeks from today undertaking that he will surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building within nine months from today and undertaking further through the same affidavit that arrears of rent due as on date will be paid within one month from today and occupation charges at the current rent rate will be paid as and when the same falls due. RCR.No.52/2011 3 We clarify that the tenant will get the benefits of time allowed as above only if affidavit as directed above is filed and the undertakings therein are complied with. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk