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 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 356 of 2010 (D) ------------------------------- RCA.54/2007 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.141/2005 of III ADDL.M.C. & RENT CONTROLLER, EKM. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN RCA/RESPONDENT IN RCP ------------------------------------------------------------ A.S.DINESAN,S/O.SANKU,AGED 54,DOOR NO. XL/7900,MALAYA MANSION BUILDING, JEW STREET, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP ------------------------------------------------------------------- P.O.VARGHESE,S/O.OUSEPH JOSEPH, AGED 47,PARAPPILLY HOUSE,MATTOOR PO, KALADY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 574. ADV. SRI.JACOB GEORGE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 ORDER Gopinathan, J The revision petitioner is the respondent in RCP.141/05 on the file of the Third Additional Rent Controller, Ernakulam. In this revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the revision petitioner assails the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.54/07 whereby eviction granted under Section 11(3) of the above Act by the Rent Controller in the above RCP was confirmed. The respondent herein instituted the above petition along with four other R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 -2- petitions, namely R.C.P Nos.137/05, 138/05, 139/05 and 140/05 seeking eviction under various grounds mainly under Section 11(3) of the Act. In the case on hand eviction under Section 11(3) alone was sought. It was contended by the respondent that the respondent bona fide needed the petition schedule building for starting wholesale textile business in the petition schedule building along with the buildings involved in the other cases and that the respondent has no other building in his possession to meet his requirement. 2. The revision petitioner and other tenants denied the bona fide need as well as the other grounds urged against other tenants. All the petitions were enquired jointly. During the course R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 -3- of the enquiry, the respondent and an Advocate Commissioner were examined as PWs.1 and 2. The revision petitioner and other tenants were examined as RWs.1 to 5. On the side of the respondent, Exts.A1 to A35 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner and other tenants, Exts.B1 to B11 series were marked. Exts.C1 to C3 and X1 and X2 were also marked. The Rent Controller on appraisal of the evidence allowed all the petitions and the revision petitioner and other tenants were directed to hand over possession of the respective petition schedule building. All tenants, except the respondent in RCP.137/05, preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The Appellate Authority by the common impugned judgment dated 31/03/2010 R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 -4- dismissed all the appeals. It is submitted from the Bar that other tenants had not come up in revision. 3. We heard Smt.R.Ranjini, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the impugned judgment as well as the order of the Rent Controller. The fact finding authorities below had meticulously analysed the evidence on record and found in favour of the respondent that the respondent bona fide needed the petition schedule building along with other buildings for starting a wholesale textile business. Admittedly, the petition schedule building is situated in the heart of the city of Kochi. It is a commercial area. The revision petitioner and other tenants could not bring out any material to doubt R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 -5- about the bona fide need urged by the respondent. Though the respondent was cross examined at length by the various tenants, his evidence regarding the bona fide need could not be impeached in cross examination. Going by the judgment impugned and the order of the Rent Controller, we find that the authorities below had correctly appreciated the evidence and have rightly come to a conclusion regarding the bona fide need in favour of the respondent. We find little reason to interfere with the finding of the authorities below regarding the bona fide need. 4. The revision petitioner has no case that the respondent is in possession of any other suitable building to meet his requirement. So, the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 would R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 -6- not interdict the order of eviction granted. Ext.C2 report submitted by the Commissioner would show that about 50 metres away from the petition schedule building there is a building named 'High Power towers' facing Chittoor Road and it has got six floors. Various rooms are lying vacant and available for rent. It is in the above circumstances, the authorities below had arrived at a finding that the revision petitioner is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3). We find no reason to interfere with that conclusion also arrived at by the authorities below. The result is that we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The judgment impugned is not at all vitiated by any error, illegality, irregularity or impropriety so as to R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 -7- rectify it in exercise of the revisional powers. 5. In the result, the revision petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, having failed to impress us to interfere with the judgment impugned, sought for time to vacate the premises till the respondent starts the business. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that there is proposal for widening of the road and there is every likelihood of acquiring the petition schedule building also and in that event the revision petitioner would be entitled to rehabilitation. The learned counsel sought time till land acquisition proceedings are finalized. We find that it is not at all just and appropriate to grant an indefinite time to vacate the premises and that it R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 -8- would be just and appropriate to grant time till 30/11/11 to vacate the premises on the following conditions:- a) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks before the execution court or Rent Controller, as the case may be, undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 30/11/11 without raising any objection. b) The revision petitioner shall discharge the arrears of rent, if any, within one month and continues to pay occupational charges at the contract rate till the premises are vacated. The revision petitioner would be entitled to get time for eviction only on compliance of both the above conditions. In the event of failure to comply with any of the above conditions, the R. C. R. No.356 of 2010 -9- respondent is at liberty to get the order of eviction executed at once. We also make it clear that this order would not interdict the revision petitioner making any claim for rehabilitation in the event of the petition schedule building being acquired in land acquisition proceedings. There will be no order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-