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 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 193 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.73/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , ERNAKULAM RCP.207/2005 of RENT CONTROL CONTROL COURT , ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/LEGAL HEIRS OF APPELLANT(TENANT) ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.A.JACOB (DIED), S/O.ANTONY, AGED 69 YEARS, JACKSON TAILORS, C.C.40/2185, PRESS CLUB ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 017(DIED). 2. ELSY JACOB, W/O.LATE JACOB, KATTIKKATH, NEW LINK ROAD, CHILAVANNOOR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. 3. SHEEJA YESUDAS, D/O.LATE JACOB, KATTIKKATH, NEW LINK ROAD, CHILAVANNOOR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. 4. SHEENA MANOJ, KATTIKKATH, NEW LINK ROAD, CHILAVANNOOR,KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.RASHEED SRI.P.M.HARIS (POOTHULIL) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. DR.JOJO JOHN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.CHOOLAKKAL JOHN MATHEW, CHOOLAKKAL HOUSE, PRESS CLUB ROAD, KOCHI- 682 011. 2. MATHEW JOHN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHOOLAKKAL JOHN MATHEW, CHOOLAKKAL HOUSE, PRESS CLUB ROAD, KOCHI-682 011. SRI.AK.SRINIVASAN ( CAVEATOR) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 194 & 195/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos.193, 194 & 195 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 27h day of May, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenants are in revision. The landlords are same in all these cases. Eviction was sought under Section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. It was contended by the landlords that the petition schedule building in these cases are required for own occupation of the landlords after reconstructing the same. The need projected was for conducting a dental clinic and use the building as an office of the 2nd respondent landlord after reconstructing the building. The need of the landlords was resisted by the tenants. 2. After appreciating the evidence adduced by both sides, the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) and also under Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act. The appeals filed by the tenants/revision petitioners were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority after a thorough reappraisal of the evidence. The tenants in these revision petitions contended that R.CR Nos.193,194 & 195/2011 2 the courts below have not appreciated the evidence properly. It is noticed that the revision petitions filed by the other tenants have already been dismissed by this court as per the order dated 20/12/2010. It was found in that case also that the need projected by the landlords is bona fide. Both the courts below after analysing the evidence found that the need set up by the landlords is bona fide. Such a finding was tendered on the basis of the legal evidence. Sitting in revision under Section 20 of the Act, we find no reason to upset the concurrent finding entered by the two courts below. Hence, all these revisions are dismissed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that one year's time may be granted to the revision petitioners to vacate the petition schedule building. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the landlords. It is pointed out that the other tenants are granted time only upto 31/12/2011 and as such it will be difficult for the landlords to reconstruct the building, since the entire building has to be demolished for reconstruction. However, we are inclined to grant time to the revision petitioners till 31/1/2012 on the following R.CR Nos.193,194 & 195/2011 3 conditions; The revision petitioners shall file affidavits within three weeks from today undertaking that they will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlords on or before 31/1/2012 and undertaking further that they will discharge the entire arrears of rent if any within one month from today and further that they will continue to pay occupational charges at the contractual rate as and when the same falls due till they surrender possession of the building. It is made clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of time granted above only if they file affidavit within three weeks from today and honour the undertakings made therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk