IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 200 of 2004() ------------------------ RCA.3/2003 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR RCP.6/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- SIVASANKARA MENON, S/O. KUTTIKRISHNA PILLA, KALLAMMARLAIN, AMBATHU PALAYAM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ SAITHUMUHAMMED, S/O. PAREED, KALARIPARAMBIL, KIZHAKKEPRAM KARA, KOTTUVALLI VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Today also, there is no representation for the revision petitioner. The RCR is dismissed for default. 22-7-09 Sd/-, PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/-, P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 200 OF 2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, North Paravur, ordering eviction against the revision petitioner for the first time under sub section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The landlord had invoked the ground of arrears of rent also. It is conceded by both sides that the said ground no longer survives for consideration. 2. The need projected by the landlord in the rent control petition was that he needs the building for the conduct of business in cane. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant. The rent control court, on the basis of the enquiry, came to the conclusion that the need was not bona fide and accordingly dismissed the rent control petition. 3. The learned appellate authority considered the appeal preferred by the landlord. That authority made a reappraisal of RCR.No.200/2004 2 the pleadings and evidence and reversed the findings of the rent control court. Accordingly, the appellate authority ordered eviction allowing the appeal. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the appellate authority and Sri.Thomas Chazhukkaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. All the submissions of Mr.Thomas Chazhukkaran were forcefully resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar before us. We have scanned the judgment of the appellate authority as well as the order of the rent control court. The question, which arises for consideration before us, is whether the judgment of the appellate authority suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as contemplated by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. We have no hesitation to say that the above question can be answered only in favour of the respondent landlord. We find from the judgment of the appellate authority that the finding therein that the need projected by the RCR.No.200/2004 3 landlord is bona fide has been entered on the basis of a correct appreciation of the oral evidence adduced by the landlord as PW1. Bona fides, being a state of mind, evidence regarding the same will be mostly oral and circumstantial. The learned appellate authority has made a critical analysis of PW1's evidence and concluded that nothing has been brought out in cross examination of PW1 to doubt his creditability. In the teeth of such a finding entered by the statutory final authority on facts, we do not find any justification for interfering with the eviction order which has been passed on the basis of such finding. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. 6. The learned counsel Mr.Chazhukkaran would make a very fervent appeal for grant of one year's time for surrendering the premises. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. However we feel that, on the totality of the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting time till 30/6/2011 subject to certain conditions. 7. The result is, therefore, as follows; The revision petition is dismissed. The Execution Court is RCR.No.200/2004 4 directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 30/6/2011 subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent landlord on or before 30/6/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid as and when the same falls due till actual surrender of the building. The revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted above only if he files affidavit on time and honours all the undertakings in the affidavit. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk