IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 31 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.1/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY THRISSUR RCP.59/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE NEELANKAVIL, S/O.NEELANKAVIL DEVASSY, OLD COURT ROAD, P.O.KUNNAMKULAM, TALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN-680 503. 2. PAUL, S/O.THARAKAN FRANCIS, KOTTAPPADI ANGADI, CHOOLPRAM DESOM, IRINGAPPRAM AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SIMON, S/O.CHERUVATHOOR VARATHAPPAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEE, A3, EAST AVENUE APARTMENTS, SEBASTIAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.31 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenants are in revision. The order of eviction was passed against them under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The petition schedule building originally belonged to the father of Simon, the landlord/respondent in this case. As per the Will executed by the father, the property was bequeathed in favour of the respondent/landlord. The tenant subsequently attorned to the respondent and rent was being paid to him. The landlord contended that he bona fide needs the petition schedule building for enabling his wife to start a tailoring shop therein. His wife, who is dependent on him, is a post graduate unemployed woman and so he contended that in order to augment the income of the family, he bona fide needs the petition schedule building. 2. The tenants resisted the petition contending that the respondent herein has not obtained right over the property and RCR.No.31/2011 2 that he cannot maintain this petition for eviction. The need projected by the landlord was also denied. Further it was contended by the revision petitioners that they are mainly depending on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building for their livelihood and that there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality for shifting their business. 3. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the need projected by the landlord is genuine and honest. It was finding that the tenants failed to prove the two ingredients of the 2nd proviso to section 11 (3), the order of eviction was passed. The appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed arguments based on all the grounds raised in the revision petition. The learned counsel submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and have come to a wrong conclusion. It was also contended that they should have been granted protection under the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. RCR.No.31/2011 3 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner have been stiffly resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent herein. Though the execution of the Will was opposed by the revision petitioners, evidence was let in by the landlord to prove the execution and attestation of the Will. Further it was proved that the rent was being paid to Mr.Simon, the landlord in this case. Hence, the objection regarding the maintainability of the petition was rightly turned down by the authorities below. Regarding the bona fides of the need, it was specifically contended by the landlord that his wife is depending on him and that he or his dependent wife has no other building to start the tailoring business intended to be conducted in the petition schedule building. As the need is for starting a tailoring shop by the landlord's wife, it cannot be said that the need projected is prompted by ulterior motives or extraneous considerations, rather it is found to be a honest and genuine need. Hence, in this revision we are not inclined to interfere with the findings so entered by the Courts below. Regarding the claim for protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11 (3), both the authorities concurrently found that the tenants have failed RCR.No.31/2011 4 to prove both the limbs of the 2nd proviso to Section 11 (3). As such, the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioners is only to be sustained. Hence the revision is dismissed. 6. As his last plea, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners requested that 15 months time may be granted to the tenants to vacate the tenanted premises. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the landlord. However, we find that it is just and proper to grant 10 months time from today subject to the following conditions.; The revision petitioners shall file affidavits before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the landlord on or before 18/11/2011 . It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that occupation charges at the existing rent rates will be paid till actual surrender of the vacant possession of the building. We make it clear that the revision petitioners will be entitled RCR.No.31/2011 5 for the benefit of time granted as above, only if they file the affidavits and honour the undertaking therein. If it is noticed that there is no compliance with the above conditions, the Execution Court will be justified in ordering delivery forthwith. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk