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 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 271 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.162/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR RCP.109/1996 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.S.VASUDEV, S/O.SANKARAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.R.NARAYANAN, S/O.RAMAN, KALLAYIL HOUSE, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. M.S.KRISHNAN, S/O.SANKARAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA.P.O, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 271 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of November , 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant, who is ordered to be evicted on the ground of bona fide own occupation, is in revision. Earlier also he was before this court and by judgment dated 30/3/2009, this court set aside the order of eviction and remanded the case to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for deciding the question whether the tenant is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Before the Appellate Authority, the tenant produced Exts.B14 to B20. The Appellate Authority by the impugned judgment found that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. Even though Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us, having gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and having kept in mind the judgments of the Full Benches of this court taking the view that the burden of establishing that he satisfies both the ingredients of the second RCR.No.271/2009 2 proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 is on the tenant himself, we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Authority that the revision petitioner was not successful in proving that he satisfies the ingredients of the proviso to sub section (3) of section 11 is not illegal, irregular or improper as envisaged by Section 20 of the Act. However, the last plea of Sri.Unnikrishnan that the revision petitioner, who is conducting a barber shop in the petition schedule building, should be given atleast six months time for vacating the premises so that he can identify an alternate building for shifting his barber shop, has some appeal to us. Accordingly, even as we confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are inclined to grant time till 30/6/2000 to the revision petitioner subject to certain conditions. 3. The result therefore, is as follows; i). The RCR is dismissed. ii). The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlord subject to the following conditions; The Revision Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court within RCR.No.271/2009 3 three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the petitioner in the RCP before 30/6/2010. It will be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any will be discharged within one month from today and that occupational charges at the current rent rate shall be paid as and when the same falls due till such time as actual surrender is made. It is made clear that the petitioner 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