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 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No.223 of 2009(E) ------------------------------ R.C.A.75/2008 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR R.C.P.93/02 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR. ------------------- REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- SANKARAN, S/O.MAKKAL RAMANKUTTY, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR VILLAGE-TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- SREE ERINJERY KARTHIAYANI KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA TRUST, PAZHAYA NADAKKAVU, THRISSUR TALUK REP. BY SECRETARY, RAMACHANDRA PISHARODY, ANAYATH PISHARAM, CHEMBUKKAVU DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 ORDER Surendra Mohan, J The revision petitioner/tenant challenges the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur dismissing his petition for condonation of delay of 668 days in filing the appeal. 2. The respondent is a Trust which has a temple. The Rent Control Petition was filed seeking vacant possession of the premises under section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965) hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. According to the landlord, the room was required for the own occupation of the landlord. The need that was R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 -2- projected by the landlord was disputed by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under section 11(7) of the Act. RCA.75/08 was filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. 3. Along with the RCA, I.A.2878/08 was filed by the revision petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 668 days in filing the appeal. As per the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the petitioner was laid up with Diabetic Mellitus and Cerebrovascular Accident from 13/07/06 to 24/08/08. The revision petitioner had asserted in his affidavit that he was totally bedridden during the said period. R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 -3- 4. The above assertion of the revision petitioner was seriously disputed by the respondent/landlord. It was pointed out that the revision petitioner/tenant had appeared before the Rent Control Court, Thrissur on 22/07/06 as well as on 01/08/06. On the admission of the parties, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the revision petitioner had appeared before the said court and had offered himself as a witness in R.C.P. No.93/02 on 22/07/2006 and 01/08/2006. He had filed his proof affidavit in the case on 22/07/2006 and had testified as a witness on 01/08/2006. Therefore, the statements made by the revision petitioner in his affidavit to the effect that he had been bedridden from 13/07/06 to 24/08/08 was found to be false. In view of the above false assertion contained in R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 -4- the affidavit of the revision petitioner, the Appellate Authority declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The said order is under challenge before us in this revision. 5. We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.Jijo Paul as well as Sri.P.Santhosh Poduval, the learned counsel for the respondent. We have anxiously considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side. 6. It is clear from the records of the case that the revision petitioner has asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay that he was seriously laid up during the period from 13/07/06 to 24/08/08. A copy of the Medical Certificate R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 -5- produced by the revision petitioner in support of the above assertion has also been handed over to us. The Medical Certificate issued by the Dr.S.S.Subramanian, Casualty Medical Officer, District Hospital, Thrissur shows only that the revision petitioner was under treatment from 13/07/06 to 24/08/08 and that he was also seen by Dr.M.A.Andrews, Neuro Consultant Professor of Medicine of the Medical College Hospital. The Medical Certificate does not state that he had been bedridden during the said period or that he had been under advise of bed rest at any point of time during the said period. In view of the above, a contention was raised that there was no reason to disbelieve the Medical Certificate to find that the petitioner was not laid up during the relevant period. R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 -6- However, as rightly noted by the Appellate Authority in the order under revision, it is the specific assertion of the revision petitioner in his affidavit that he was seriously laid up during the relevant period. He has further made an assertion that he was totally bedridden during the said period. Since it is not in dispute that he had appeared in court on 22/07/06 as well as on 01/08/06, it is clear that the said statement in the affidavit is false. Having been found to have sworn to statements that are not true, the court below was justified in not accepting the explanation of the revision petitioner and refusing to condone the huge delay of 668 days. It is clear from the conduct of the revision petitioner that he was grossly negligent in prosecuting the proceedings in this case. We do not R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 -7- find any grounds to interfere with the order under revision. Therefore, the Rent Control Revision is liable to be dismissed. We do so. 7. As a last submission, the counsel for the revision petitioner appealed for the grant of a sufficiently long period of time to surrender vacant possession of the premises. The request of the counsel was seriously opposed by the counsel for the respondent/landlord pointing out that the Rent Control proceedings were initiated in respect of three rooms, all of which were needed for the bona fide occupation of the landlord. The proceedings against the other tenants have concluded and the landlord has obtained vacant possession of the said premises. Therefore, granting of a long period of time to the revision petitioner would cause serious prejudice to the R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 -8- respondent, it is contended. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, we feel that the interests of justice would be met by granting time to the tenant up to 30/06/2010 to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord, subject to appropriate conditions. Therefore, the Rent Control Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the tenant shall be granted time up to 30/06/2010 to vacate the premises subject to the following conditions:- 1) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the execution court, as the case may be, within a period of one month from today unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord on or before 30/06/2010. R. C. R. No.223 of 2009 -9- 2) The tenant shall pay all arrears of rent, if any, due in respect of the premises and shall continue to pay rent at the contracted rate regularly till he surrenders vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. 3) The landlord shall be free to execute the order of eviction passed in this case in the event of default on the part of tenant of any of the above conditions. This RCR is dismissed subject to the above conditions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-