IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 294 of 2010(C) ------------------------------ RCA.47/1997 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.257/1995 of PRL.M.C./RENT CONTROL COURT,KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- B.T.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.HUSSAIN KUNHI, AGED 64 YEARS, TEA SHOP OWNER, B.T.CAFE, M.A.ROAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- CHITTALIKKAL SAFIYA, D/O.SUHARA, AGED 66 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, KANNUR II AMSOM, KANNOTHUMCHAL DESOM, KANNUR 12. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.294 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Court under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by the landlady was that she wanted to accommodate her son one Muhammed Ashraf so that Sri.Muhammed Ashraf can conduct grocery business. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction. But considering the appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Authority would R. C. R. No.294 of 2010 -2- accept the tenant's defence that Sri.Muhammed Ashraf is already engaged full time assisting his father in father's business and hence, the need projected by the mother/landlady is not bona fide and accordingly, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and vacated the order of eviction. Challenging that order, the landlady came to this Court filing RCR No.193/05. This Court by order dated 13/10/09 set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remanded the appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority permitting the landlady to take out a commission on certain aspects mentioned in the order and directing the Appellate Authority to take a fresh decision. This Court also would refix the rent from Rs.50/- per R. C. R. No.294 of 2010 -3- mensem to Rs.250/- per mensem. The judgment which is impugned in this revision was passed by the Appellate Authority pursuant to that remand order. Under the impugned judgment the Appellate Authority has held that the bona fides of the need stood established and that order of eviction is liable to be passed and has accordingly ordered eviction. 2. In this revision filed under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We have heard the submissions of Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque who has taken notice on behalf of the respondent/ R. C. R. No.294 of 2010 -4- landlady. Even though Sri.Nambiar addressed strenuous arguments before us we are not persuaded to hold that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated to the extent of warranting interference under our present jurisdiction. According to us, the finding by the Appellate Authority that the need is bona fide and the further finding that the tenant is unsuccessful in showing that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso is founded on legal evidence available on record. That being the position, it is not possible to say that there is illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged under Section 20 on the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. Revision necessarily has to fail. R. C. R. No.294 of 2010 -5- 3. As a last plea Sri.Nambiar requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises as according to him, the income from the tea shop business which the tenant is conducting in the petition schedule building is the sole means of livelihood. The above request is opposed stiffly by Mr.Mustaque. However, we feel that having regard to the totality of the circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting time till 15/04/11 subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the result is as follows:- RCR is dismissed confirming the order of eviction. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule R. C. R. No.294 of 2010 -6- building till 15/04/11 subject to the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner will file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent on or before 15/04/11. It will be further undertaken through the affidavit that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and further that occupational charges at the current rent rate of Rs.250/- per mensem will also be paid as and when the same falls due without fail. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time as granted above only if the R. C. R. No.294 of 2010 -7- conditions stipulated above are complied with in full. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-