IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 208 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.175/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.112/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.V.ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.V.MUHAMMED KOYA HAJI, "DELIGHT" NEAR E.S.I. CHLAPPURAM, CALICUT-2, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM. 2. M.V.ANSARI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE. P.V.MUHAMME KOYA HAJI, 16/624, SOUDHA MANZIL FRANCIS ROAD, CALICUT-1. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. ANCHALAN HAMZA, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. ANJALA KUNAHAVARAN HAJI, OLKAKARA AMSOM AND KOOMANA DESOM, THIRURRANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NOUSHAD ALI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. HASSAINAR HAJI, KANAYANNUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. K.C.MOHAMMED RAFFI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. HASSAINAR HAJI, KANAYANNUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK AND DIST. ADV. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2669/2009 IN RCR NO.208/2009 DISMISSED 21/12/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 208 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 21th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants are in revision. Under challenge is an order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence, which came on record, found that the need projected by the landlords was bona fide and that the tenants are not entitled to the protection of any of the provisos of sub section (3) of Section 11. The Appellate Authority also after reappreciating the evidence, concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction. 2. In this revision under Section 20 the revision petitioners have raised various grounds challenging the decisions of the authorities below inter alia contending that the authorities below went wrong in repelling the plea that the lease was not of building but of land and that it was the revision petitioners, who put up the building on the land which was leased out to them for RCR.No.208/2009 2 commercial purposes. Accordingly, it is urged that the revision petitioners have got immunity from eviction by virtue of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is also urged that even if it is found that an arrangement between the parties is one building lease, then the apposite ground on which eviction can be passed is only sub Section (8) of Section 11. It is also urged that the finding of the authorities below that grounds under Sections 11 (2) and 11 (4) (iii) which were also upheld by the authorities below exist are illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. 3. Sri.C.Khalid, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would submit before us, when the case came up for hearing before us initially, that there is a very good chance of the issue being settled upon the tenants paying much higher rent than the present monthly rent of Rs.40/-. The above submission was not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, we gave several chances to the parties for settling the issue. Today, it is reported us that settlement is not possible. According to Sri.Khalid, the tenants became prepared to pay the increased rent from Rs.40/- to Rs.400/-. But the landlords RCR.No.208/2009 3 were insisting on exorbitant amounts and this, according to the learned counsel, was the reason for failure of the compromise talks. After submitting so, Sri.Khalid addressed arguments on the basis of the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. 4. All the submissions of Sri.Khalid were resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents, who supported the impugned judgment on the various reasons stated therein. The learned counsel submitted that, having regard to the commercial importance of the area where the building is situated, the building will fetch, if let out today, a monthly rent of at least Rs.3,000/-. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. We have made a quick survey of the evidence on record. We find that the findings entered by the learned authorities below regarding the eviction grounds invoked by the landlords are all founded on evidence. We do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety as founded by section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 for upsetting those findings. The revision RCR.No.208/2009 4 necessarily has to fail. However, considering the last plea of Sri.Khalid that one more opportunity for settlement of the issue be given and that at any rate the tenants be given at least one year's time from today to surrender the premises, we are inclined to decide the RCR in the following terms; i). The RCR is dismissed. ii). The order of eviction passed by the authorities below is confirmed. The Revision Petitioners are directed to file an affidavit before the Execution Court on or before 6/1/2010 undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises to the respondents/landlords on or before 30/9/2010. It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, will be discharged within one month from today and that occupational charges at the rate of Rs.400/- per month will be paid RCR.No.208/2009 5 with effect from 1/1/2010 till the date of actual surrender. Iii). The Execution Court is directed to order and effect delivery only after the Execution Court explores the possibility of a rapprochement of the issue between the parties, if necessary, by summoning both the parties to the court hall. That court shall order delivery after 30/9/2010 only when it is found that settlement of the issue between the parties is not possible. It is made clear that the revision petitioners will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk