IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 476 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.28/2011 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ,KOLLAM RCOP.34/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- B.THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. BENCHAMIN, PROPRIETOR, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGAR HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, CHANDRA BHAVAN, VENDOR MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM 691518. 2.TITUS, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. BENCHAMIN, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGER HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. 3. VARGHESE,AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. BENCHAMIN, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGER HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. 4. JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. BENCHAMIN, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGER HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. 5. SANTHA, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. BENCHAMIN, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGER HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. 6. JASSCINATHA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. BENCHAMIN, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGER HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. 7.VIMALA, AGED 40,YEARS, D/O. BENCHAMIN, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGER HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. 8. ELIZABATH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. BENCHAMIN, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGER HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. 9. ELIZABATH, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. BENCHAMIN, THOMAS STATIONERY & FRUITS NEAR BENZIGER HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. BY SRI..P.B.SURESH KUMAR (SR.ADV.) SRI.LEO GEORGE, CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R NO. 476 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This revision under Section 20 is filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed against him on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 and under section 11 (2)(b). As for the eviction order passed under Section 11 (2)(b), no serious arguments were addressed before us in view of the decision that the said eviction order is always liable to be got evicted by making requisite deposits under Section 11 (2)(c). Under serious challenge in this revision is the legality, regularity and propriety of the eviction order concurrently passed by the two statutory authorities under sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Raja Vijayaraghavan learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar learned senior counsel for the respondents/landlords who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of RCR No. 476 /2011 2 this revision petition. 3. At the very outset, our attention was drawn by Mr.Raja Vijayaraghavan and also by the learned senior counsel to our own judgment in RCR Nos.453/2011 and 465/2011. According to Mr.Raja Vijayaraghavan all the reliefs, which have been given by this court to the revision petitioners in RCR No.453/2011, should be granted to the present revision petitioner also as the impugned judgment is one and the same and as similar contentions were raised. 4. Mr.Suresh Kumar learned senior counsel for the landlords submits that there is a difference between RCR No.453/2011 and other two cases including this one. In RCR No.453/2011, the revision petitioners had preferred an appeal as appeal No.151/2011 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against the permit issued by the local authority. In the present case there is no such appeal preferred by the revision petitioner. 5. Replying to the above submission, Mr.Raja Vijaraghavan drew our attention to the averments in the affidavit which the petitioner had sworn to in lieu of his chief examination. The RCR No. 476 /2011 3 learned counsel submitted that it was very clearly stated in the affidavit that the permit is not a valid one. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant in Appeal No.150/2011 is the direct nephew of the present revision petitioner and it was actually upon the instructions from the present revision petitioner that the above appeal was filed. 6. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that for the various reasons stated by us in the judgment in R.C.R. No.453/2011 and 465/2011, the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority is liable to be approved by us. We dismiss this revision. However, we grant to the revision petitioner time till 30/9/2012 for surrendering the petition schedule building subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner shall pay occupational charges for the building occupied by him with effect from 1/1/2012 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. ii). There will be a further direction that the Execution Court will order or effect delivery of the building, which is subject matter of this revision petition, only simultaneously with the order to be passed regarding the buildings, which are subject RCR No. 476 /2011 4 matters of RCR Nos. 453/2011 and 465/2011, as far as possible. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk