IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 292 of 2010() ------------------------ (RCA NO.44/2008 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RCP NO.6/2007 OF RENT CONTROL COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------- CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, AGED 72 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN KURUP,KOLLAM POTTAMEDAYIL VEEDU, OOLAM PARA, PEROORKADA VILLAGE, RANTAMADAMURI, TRIVANDRUM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- SYAMALABHAI AMMA, AGED 51 YEAS, D/O. KAMALAMMA, CHARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, OOLAMPARA, PEROORKADA VILLAGE, RANTAMADAMURI, TRIVANDRUM TALUK. PIN 695005. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 292 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September , 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation and confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment. 2. Even though apparently serious grounds are raised in the memorandum of revision and Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the present jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. We notice that the finding that the need is bona fide and that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3), has been entered by the statutory authorities on RCR.No.292/2010 2 the basis of evidence which was actually available on record. The oral evidence adduced by the landlady, who was examined as PW1, inspired the Rent Control Court as well as the learned Appellate Authority. The needy person, daughter of the landlady, also gave evidence as PW2 and her evidence also inspired the statutory authorities. We find that the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003 (2) KLT 230) was kept in mind by the statutory authorities while appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties in the context of second proviso to Section 11(3). 3. As for the ground of arrears of rent also, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was unable to make any dent on the findings entered by the statutory authorities which again are on the basis of evidence on record. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a last plea that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner has reached the evening period of his life and he may be allowed to continue in the RCR.No.292/2010 3 building for one year. Even though we feel that there is justification for granting some time, we will not be justified in granting so much of time without notice to the respondent. Hence, even as we dismiss the RCR confirming the order of eviction, we are inclined to issue notice to the landlady for deciding on the duration of time to be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. The result is that RCR stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk