IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 281 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.48/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELALTE AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD RCP.60/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REV.PETIIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ ISMAIL,18/375,M.C.LODGE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- 1. M.B.RAJESH,S/O.LATE BALAN,MANAMKAVU, PADINJHARE YAKKARA, PALAKKAD. 2. M.B.RAMESH, S/O.LATE BALAN, -DO- V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) T.C.SURSH MENON THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 281 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Gopinathan, J. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in RCP NO.60/2008 on the file of the Rent Controller/Additional Munsiff, Palakkad. The landlords/petitioners sought for eviction of the revision petitioner for bona fide need and additional accommodation under Section 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). Inter alia, the revision petitioner disputed the bona fide need as well as the additional requirement of the petition schedule building. The respondents alleged that the petition schedule building is bona fide required for starting an Internet Caffee. Since the respondents are in possession of another room, stating that the said room is not sufficient to meet the requirement of the respondent, additional accommodation was also urged. 2. The Rent Controller enquired the petition along with RCR.No.281/2010 2 RCP No.59/2008. The first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined of whom RW1 is the revision petitioner. The commissioner, who inspected the properties, was examined as CW1. His report was marked as Ext.C1. The Rent Controller on evaluating the materials disclosed in enquiry arrived at a finding in favour of the respondents. Consequently, the petition was allowed under Section 11(3) and 11 (8) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the revision petitioner preferred the Rent Control Appeal RCA NO.48/2009 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad. The Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the materials on record arrived at a finding that the case on hand comes under Section 11(3) and not under Section 11 (8) of the Act. Overruling the objection raised by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority concurred with the Rent Controller and found that the bona fide need alleged by the respondents/landlords was established by the evidence of PW1. It was further found that the revision petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. RCR.No.281/2010 3 Consequently the appeal was dismissed. 4. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above judgment confirming the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, this revision petition was filed. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and perused the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Controller. We find that the authorities below had correctly appraised the evidence of PW1 which could not be impeached in cross examination. There is little reason to doubt about the bona fide need viz. the requirement of the petition schedule building for starting an Internet Caffee. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not point out any illegality, error or impropriety committed by the appellate authority in appreciating the evidence on record in finding that the respondent needed the petition schedule building for the bona fide need. The evidence of PW1 instil confidence. Authorities below rightly believed PW1. In the above circumstances, we find little reason to interfere with the concurrent finding on the facts by the authorities below in exercise of the limited powers of jurisdiction under section 20 of the Act. Revision Petition is devoid of merits. RCR.No.281/2010 4 Accordingly it is dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, having failed in convincing us to admit the revision, submitted that to surrender the petition schedule building, the petitioner may be given eight months' time within which period the revision petitioner could make alternate arrangements. Though we find no good reason to grant time, to avoid any dispute in execution and to have a finality, we feel that it would be just and proper to grant time to the revision petitioner to vacate the petition schedule building till 15/4/2011. In the above circumstances we order that the execution court shall keep the order impugned in abeyance till 15/4/2011 on the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the Rent Controller undertaking that he should vacate the premises on or before 15/4/2011 without raising any objection. ii). The revision petitioner shall pay of the entire arrears of rent if any and continue to pay damages for use of the building at the contract rate on the due date of rent without any default. iii). In the event of failure to file affidavit or comply the RCR.No.281/2010 5 conditions, the respondents are at liberty to execute the judgment impugned upon such default. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk