IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 293 of 2010() ------------------------ (RCA NO.24/2008 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RCP NO.68/2006 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT: -------------------- RUFUS JOSEPH PROPRIETOR. THE 6TH AVENU PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONENTS: --------------- 1. VEENA AKHIL, D/O. SOBHA MATHEW, T.C. NO.31/531 VELLAYABALAM, AND NOW RESIDING AT NO. 2B, TOUCH STONE APARTMENTS, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHRUTHI ANN THOMAS, D/O. SOBHA MATHEW NO. 2 B, TOUCH STONE APARTMENTS, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 293 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Gopinathan, J. The revision petitioner is the tenant - respondent in RCP No.68/2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petition schedule building therein was originally belonging to the mother of the respondents who are sisters. It was let out to the revision petitioner in the year 2001 for a monthly rent of Rs.11,000/-. The petition schedule building was set apart to the 2nd respondents as per a Will executed by their late mother. The first respondent has been running a beauty parlor in a building owned by her father- in -law. According to the respondents, the said building is required for the residential purpose of the father- in -law and mother -in- law who had no other residential house and hence it had become absolutely necessary to shift the beauty parlor run in the building belonging to the father- in -law to the petition schedule building. Thus the respondents bona fide required the petition schedule building for shifting the business of the first respondent. With RCR.No.293/2010 2 the above plea, the respondents approached the Rent Control Court seeking order of eviction under Section 11(3) and also under section 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965 for reasons separately stated. 2. The Revision petitioner, inter alia denied the bona fide need urged by the respondents. 3. During the course of enquiry, the respondents were examined as Pws1 & 2 and the revision petitioner was examined as CPW1. On the side of the respondents Exts.A1 to A7, C1 and C1(a) were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. On appraisal of the materials disclosed during enquiry, the Rent Controller arrived at a finding in favour of the respondents regarding the bonafie need and the revision petitioner was directed to put the respondents in possession of the petition schedule building under section 11(3). The eviction sought under Section 11 (4)(i) and 11 (4)(ii) was rightly rejected by the Rent Controller. 4. Assailing the order of eviction granted under Section 11 (3), the revision petitioner took up the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by the impugned RCR.No.293/2010 3 judgment dated 17/8/2010 concurred with the trial court as regards the bona fide need urged by the respondents. Consequently the appeal was dismissed. Legality, regularity, correctness and propriety of the above judgment is now assailed in this revision under section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. 5. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the judgment impugned. We find that the respondents have no other building of their own to shift the business that the first respondent now run in a building owned by her father- in -law. In the above circumstances, there is little reason to doubt about the bona fide need. The intention of the respondents to shift the business to own building can no way be termed as tainted with malafides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the first respondent is permanently employed in Federal Bank and that the bona fides of the first respondent to run the business itself is to be doubted. We find no merit in that argument because even at the time of filing of the petition she was employed and there is no cross examination regarding the running of the business while employed in the Federal Bank. So that argument deserves no RCR.No.293/2010 4 consideration. We find that the judgment impugned is in tune with the evidence adduced during enquiry. There is no illegality, irregularity or improperly in the order to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers. The Revision petition fails. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, having failed to impress us to admit this revision petition, sought for one year's time to vacate the premises with a plea that by the time the revision petitioner could make alternate arrangements for shifting his business. We find that the time sought for by the learned counsel is too long and it is not at all reasonable and that it would be just and appropriate to grant time till 30/4/2011 on the following conditions ; i)The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the the Execution Court undertaking that the petition schedule building shall be vacated on or before 30/4/2011 without raising any objection. ii). The revision petitioner shall continue to pay damages for use and occupation at the contract rate of rent on the due dates without any fail. iii)In the event the revision petitioner files affidavit as RCR.No.293/2010 5 above and continue to pay damages for use and occupation, the Execution Court shall keep the order of delivery in abeyance till 30/4/2011. iv). In the event of failure to comply with the above condition by the revision petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to execute the order of eviction on such failure. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk