IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No.193 of 2008 (B) ------------------------------ RCA.2/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,KOZHIKODE RCP.98/2006 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- T.K.SASEENDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KELAPPAN, RESIDING AT THIRUMANGALATH KOCHALAN, POST PANNIYURKULAM, PANTHEERANKAVU, PERUMANNA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV SRI.V.SREENATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. P.RASHEED, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MAMMEDKOYA RESIDING AT PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUR AMSOM, PERUMANNA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. 2. JASMINE, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.RASHEED, RESIDING AT PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUR AMSOM, PERUMANNA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN FOR R1,2 SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN FOR R1,2 SMT.JYOTHIS.P.MADHAVAN FOR R1,2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, ALONG WITH RCR NO.199 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J The defeated tenants are the revision petitioners. The RCR.193/08 is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Kozhikode in RCA.2/07 dated February 26, 2008 confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 11(8) of the Act in RCP.98/06 dated November 16, 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-I), Kozhikode. RCR.199/08 is filed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (I Additional District Judge), Kozhikode in RCA.181/06 dated March 26, 2008 confirming the order of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Kozhikode in R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -2- RCP.107/03 dated October 19, 2006 ordering eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. 2. The revision respondents who are the landlords filed RCP.98/06 before the Rent Controller (Additional Munsiff-I), Kozhikode seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act on the allegation that the tenant has kept rent in arrears; that the landlords bona fide require the petition schedule shop room for expanding their business of hiring goods conducted in the adjacent shop rooms and also that they bonafide need the petition schedule shop room for their occupation. The landlords filed RCP.107/03 before the Rent Controller (Principal Munsiff-I), Kozhikode against the tenant of the adjoining shop room claiming eviction on the R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -3- same grounds i.e. under Section 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. In this RCP, the landlords claimed eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act also which was subsequently not pressed. 3. The revision petitioners in both the Rent Control Revisions who are the tenants resisted the claim contending that there are no rent in arrears; that the bonafide need put forwarded by the landlord that they require the petition schedule rooms as an additional accommodation for expanding their business conducted in the adjacent shop room is not genuine and that they are entitled to the protection of first and second provisos to sub Section 3 of Section 11 of the Act. 4. Before the Rent Control Court in RCP.98/06 R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -4- PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9(a) were marked on the side of the landlords. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B35(a) were marked on the side of the tenants. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1 and his report and sketch were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). In RCP.107/03, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the landlords and RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the tenants. Commissioner's Report and sketch were marked as Exts.C1 and C2. 5. The Rent Control Courts on an appreciation of the evidence found that the landlords bonafide require the petition schedule shop room as an additional accommodation to expand their business conducted in R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -5- the nearby shop room and ordered eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. As regards the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found that the claim of the landlords will come under Section 11(8) of the Act and not under Section 11(3) of the Act. In RCP No.98/06 eviction was ordered under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act also, but it was vacated by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. Now the tenants have come up in revision. 6. As the landlords in both these revisions are the same and as the landlords have sought eviction of the petition schedule shop rooms which form part of the same building, both these Rent Control Revisions are disposed of by a common order. R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -6- 7. The only point which arises for consideration is whether the orders of the Rent Control Courts ordering eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority can be sustained. 8. Regarding eviction ordered under Section 11 (8) of the Act, Sri.K.V.Jayachandran and Sri.P.K.Sajeev counsel for the revision petitioners argued that it is not proved that the landlord was conducting any business in the nearby shop room and that therefore, both the courts below went wrong in ordering eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. We find no merit in the above contentions. It is pointed out by Sri.K.M.Jamaludheen, the learned counsel for the landlord that in the counter statement filed by the tenants itself, they have admitted that the landlord is R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -7- conducting business of hiring goods in the adjacent petition schedule shop room. 9. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both parties before the Rent Control Courts, the orders of the Rent Control Courts and the judgments of the Appellate Authority. We find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by both the courts below. We find no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the orders passed by the Rent Control Courts as well as the judgments of the Appellate Authority to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965). That being so, both the revision petitions have to be dismissed. 10. As his last submission, Sri.K.V.Jayachandran, R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -8- the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in RCR.199/08 sought for one year's time to vacate the premises. Taking into account the fact that the revision petitioner in this case is conducting business in the petition schedule shop room, we feel that the time till 28/02/2010 can be granted to the revision petitioner in this case to vacate the premises on the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner in RCR.199/08 shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within three weeks from this date agreeing to surrender the vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room on or before 28/02/2010. On receipt of such affidavit, the Rent Control Court shall defer the delivery to 01/03/2010. R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -9- 2) The tenant in RCR.199/08 shall pay the arrears of rent up to date and shall pay the future monthly rent as and when the same falls due, failing which he will not be entitled to the benefit of time granted to him under this order. 11. As regards the revision petitioner in RCR.193/08, Sri.P.K.Sajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the tenant has entered into a settlement with the landlord. This fact was not seriously disputed by the counsel for the landlords. Sri.K.M.Jamaludheen, the learned counsel for the landlords submitted that he is not aware of the details of the settlement entered into. Therefore, the tenant in RCR.193/08 is granted time till 28/02/2010 for vacating the premises on the same conditions as R. C. R. Nos.193 & 199 of 2008 -10- mentioned above. But the conditions mentioned above will not stand in the way of the tenant making any settlement with the landlords. 12. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. Party shall bear their own costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-