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 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 237 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.8/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , PALAKKAD RCP.24/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SHAMEED, S/O. P..A ABDULKAREEM 2. KHADEEJA, D/O. ABDULKAREEM. BOTH APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT COLLAGE ROAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- 1. NOORJAHAN, D/O. ABDUL MUSTHAFA, CIVIL STATION, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. UMMUSULMMA, D/O. MOHAMMED USMAN, AHAMMED MANZIL KOVAI PUTHUR,COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU. 3. REJINA, W/O. JALEEL, VANDITHAVALAM, PATTANCHERIVILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD 678001. ALL RESIDING AT SREERAM STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.237 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub section(3) of Section 11 and the ground under clause (v) of sub section (4) of Section 11. 2. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, which consisted of the oral evidence of PW1, the first respondent landlady for whose occupation the building was sought for and that of the 2nd revision petitioner tenant as RW1 and also Ext.A1 and Ext.C1, came to the conclusion that need projected by the landladies in respect of the building for own occupation for residential purpose is bona fide one. Similarly, relying mainly on Ext.C1 commission report and convincing oral evidence of PW1, the court concluded that the RCR.No. 237/2011 2 tenants had ceased to occupy the building continuously without any reasonable cause for a period of more than six months. On the basis of such evidence, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction on both the grounds. 3. The learned Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners, made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.C.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous arguments before us based on those grounds. Notwithstanding the submissions of Sri.Vinod Kumar, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we notice that the findings entered therein are reasonable findings based on evidence actually available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory authorities based on the evidence available on record, this court should be very slow in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. In fact, we do not find any warrant for invocation of RCR.No. 237/2011 3 the said jurisdiction over the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. 5. As a last plea, Sri.Vinod Kumar requested for grant of time to surrender the premises. According to him, presently the revision petitioners are in occupation of the building. We feel that on the totality of the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting at least six months time to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises subject to certain conditions. 6. We order that the Execution Court will keep all proceedings in abeyance for a period of six months from today subject to the following conditions; The 2nd revision petitioner representing herself and the first revision petitioner her brother will file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the first respondent/landlady within six months from today and undertaking further to discharge arrears of rent if any within one month from today and to pay RCR.No. 237/2011 4 occupational charges at the existing rent rate. We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of time as allowed above, only if they file affidavit on time and honour the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk