IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 44 of 2011(E) ---------------------------- RCA.35/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.46/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER (APPELLANT/RESPONDENT) -------------------------------------------------------- AMEER ABBAS, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, PARAKKULAM, LAL NAGAR, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD-678001. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SMT.O.K.SANTHA SMT.S.SANTHY RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENT/PETITIONER) ---------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED ASIF, S/O.SAINUDHEEN, OLANGOTTU HOUSE, KAVILPAD, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD-678 002. ADV. K.ANAND FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.44 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 ORDER Balakrishnan, J The tenant is in revision. Order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) by the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The need projected by the landlord is that he intends to start grocery business in the petition schedule building. The petition schedule building was settled in his favour by his father as per Ext.A1 settlement deed dated 26/11/05. Thereafter, the petition schedule building was leased out to the petitioner herein by PW1/landlord as per Rent Deed dated 01/09/07. After expiry of one year the RCP was filed. 2. The tenant resisted the petition contending that the bona fide need urged by the landlord is not true and that R. C. R. No.44 of 2011 -2- Ext.A1 settlement deed itself was executed by his father with oblique motives. That contention was concurrently turned down by both courts. 3. Sri.D.Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has addressed arguments at length stating that the observations made by the Advocate Commissioner regarding the internet cafe conducted in another building was not adverted to by the authorities below. But it could be found that the internet cafe was run by the father. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that Ext.B1 the visiting card shows that PW1 is the owner of that internet cafe. It seems that this contention was not seriously pressed into service before the courts below. There is no case for the tenant that the landlord is having any other building of his own for starting the business intended by him. Though temporarily he may be assisting his father in his business or is having some R. C. R. No.44 of 2011 -3- avocation for eking out his livelihood, it cannot be said that he has a permanent job or avocation so as to dis-entitle him from claiming eviction under Section 11(3). Considering all these aspects both the courts found that the need urged by the landlord is honest and genuine. 4. The tenant could not substantiate his claim for protection under the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. We find no reason to upset the concurrent findings entered by the courts below. As such, the revision petition is dismissed. 5. The learned counsel Sri.D.Krishna Prasad submits that one and a half year's time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. However, we find that it will be just and proper to grant one year's time to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building but only on the following conditions:- The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three R. C. R. No.44 of 2011 -4- weeks from today before the execution court or Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to surrender the building peacefully to the landlord within one year from today and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if any, due as on date will be discharged within one month and further that with effect from 1st February, 2011 till the date of actual surrender the revision petitioner/tenant pays Rs.500/- per mensem as occupation charges to the respondent/landlord. We make it clear that the revision petitioner/tenant will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertaking given by him. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- R. C. R. No.44 of 2011 -5-