IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 RCRev..No. 87 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.93/2004 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.32/2000 of RENT CONTROLLER, KODUNGALLUR .................... APPELLANTS/CR.PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------ 1. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGD 63 YEARS, LIC AGENT S/O.KANADY KONNAPPAN, PULIPARAMBU DESOM POYYA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. SARASWATHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BUSINESS, D/O.KANADY KONNAPPAN, PULIPARAMBU DESOM POYYA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, S/O.APPACHATHUVEETIL KUMARAN POOPATHY DESOM, POYYA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK 2. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, S/O.APPACHATHUVEETIL KUMARAN POOPATHY DESOM, POYYA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.NO.87 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J: The tenant and the alleged subtenant are the revision petitioners. The respondents are the landlords. The eviction was sought under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The rent controller allowed that application and the appellate authority affirmed the same. Though the judgment of the appellate authority was rendered on 14.3.2006, this revision is filed on 26.3.2008. Going by the Full Bench decision of this Court, an application to condone the delay may not be necessary but, the petitioners have to explain the reason for the delay by filing an affidavit. In purported compliance of that legal requirement, the 1st petitioner has filed an affidavit. Paragraph - 2 of the same reads as follows: “It is submitted that the judgment of the RCA was received on 22.5.2006. We could not file this Revision petition till this date due to reasons beyond our control. I am an astma patient with continuous treatment. At the same time our mother was bedridden and died in December, 2006. R.C.R.NO.87/08 . 2 I am physically not in a position to travel from Poyya to Ernakulam. Hence with the help of a friend only I could come to Ernakulam and entrust the matter with the advocate. Hence, there occurred delay in filing the Revision Petition. It is submitted that there is no laches on our part as we are not in a position to file the Revision as stated above. In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and the Revision petition may be heard on merit” 2. Going by the affidavit, we notice that practically no ground has been made out to excuse the delay in filing this revision. After hearing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that they may be given some time to vacate the premises. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the petitioners are granted six months' time from today to vacate the premises on condition that they file an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit withdrawing their contentions and also undertaking to vacate the premises within six months from today. The affidavit in this regard shall be filed within three weeks from today. The arrears of rent, if any, remaining unpaid shall be paid within one month from today. The monthly rent payable from time to time shall also be paid till the tenanted room is vacated. R.C.R.NO.87/08 . 3 Subject to the above directions, this revision petition is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl