IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY, 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1930 RCRev..No. 160 of 2008 (RCA.87/2003 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.17/2000 of RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF COURT), KODUNGALLUR) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN, S/O THANKAMANI AMMA, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------- NAZEER, S/O LATE MOHAMMED YOUSUF, PADIYATH, PUTHENKATTIL, VEMBALLUR DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- R.C.R.No. 160 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy,J: This revision petition is filed by a tenant who was running a dental clinic in the rented building owned by the respondent. The landlord wanted the same for bona fide occupation and therefore, eviction was granted under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . After a detailed consideration of the evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the need alleged by the landlord was bona fide and the claimant was not entitled to get the benefit of 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The above view was upheld by the appellate authority. 2. We see no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts entered into by the Rent Control Authority as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Even subsequent development as alleged by the claimant was considered by the Appellate Authority. R.C.R.NO. 160 OF 2008 :-2-: We also note that similar contention raised by the other tenant, occupying the other part of premises, was rejected by another Division Bench of this Court in R.C.R.No.99 of 2008. We follow the above observation. 3. However, considering the facts that he was conducting a dental clinic for a long time and public also will suffer if the dental clinic is immediately shifted, we grant the revision petitioner six months' time from today to vacate the petition schedule premises subject to the condition that he shall within three weeks from today file an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit in the Execution Court agreeing to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the respondent/landlord on the expiry of the period of six months from today. He shall also undertake to pay the arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and to continue to pay the rent due from time to time till he surrenders vacant possession of the building. If the R.C.R.NO. 160 OF 2008 :-3-: petitioner/tenant fails to file the undertaking as directed above, it will be open to the respondent/landlord to forthwith execute the order for eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Revision is dismissed with the above observation. J.B.KOSHY, Judge V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ R.C.R.NO. 160 OF 2008 :-4-: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A.NO. 81 OF 2000 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T R.C.R.NO. 160 OF 2008 :-5-: DATED:17-6-2008 R.C.R.NO. 160 OF 2008 :-6-: