IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 387 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.13/2002 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY RCP.76/1999 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- KOROTT CHOBALAN AZEEZ, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, MANGATTIVAYAL, NEAR KUNIYIL BRIDGE, P.O.KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------- 1. KANIYANKANDY ABOOBACKER, AGED 48 YEARS, BUSINESS, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, P.O.KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KANIYANKANDY ASHRAF, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MAMMU, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, P.O.KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL FOR R.1,2 SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. No. 3146 OF 2006 DISMISSED SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE 1-2-2011 SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 387 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(v) is under challenge in this revision. Eviction was sought by the landlord under Section 11(4)(v) contending that the tenant, who was entrusted with the room upstairs of the building was kept unoccupied for several years. The landlord purchased the entire building on 16-7-1999. The RCP was filed on 10-12-1999. Relying on the commissioner's report and the oral evidence given by the landlord and the neighbouring shop owners it was found that the petition schedule building was ceased to be occupied by the tenant continuously for more than six months. The finding so entered by the court below was upheld by the Appellate Authority. RCR.387/06 -2- 2. The learned counsel Sri.Sajid appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the court below has omitted to take note of the fact that the tenant was admitted in hospital on 8-10-1999 and was discharged on 16-8-1999 and was undergoing further treatment for herniya was not taken note of by the court below to hold that continued period of cessation of occupation for six months is not satisfied. But the commissioner's report shows that the building was kept unoccupied for several years. That apart, there is clear and unimpeachable evidence, Ext.X-1 meter reading register issued by the K.S.E.B. which shows that from January 1994 onwards there was no consumption of energy and that the building always remained 'door locked'. Therefore we find no reason to upset the finding concurrently entered by two courts below that there was cessation of occupation of the building continuously for more than 6 months. RCR.387/06 -3- The result therefore is the revision fails and is dismissed. The tenant is granted five months' time from today subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within two weeks from today before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building on or before 30/6/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent if any as on date will be discharged within one month from today and further that occupation charges at the current rent rate will also be paid without fail. The revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted above, only if he files the affidavit on time. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-