IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 RCRev..No. 175 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.49/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.60/2003 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------------------- KARUVATH SUDHAKARAN, S/O APPU, AGED 71 YEARS, BROTHERS INDUSTRIALS, ELANHIPALAM, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. METHALPURATH SARASWATHY, W/O LATE SREENIVASAN, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING METHALPURATH, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SINI ,D/O. LATE SREENIVASAN,AGED 33 YEAR RESIDING METHALPURATH, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. BHAVYA, D/O LATE SREENIVASAN, AGED 30 YEARS,RESIDING METHALPURATH, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN IA NO.1675/08 DISMISSED. 24.7.2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No. 175 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this 24th the day of July, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The challenge is against the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.49/2006. 2. Eviction was sought by the landladies under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The bonafide need pleaded is the requirement of the second and third petitioners who have completed their education and have knowledge in computer. They wanted to start a tuition class in the petition schedule building by conducting a computer centre. The Rent Control Court found, on an analysis of the evidence, that the bonafide need pleaded is genuine. Apart from the oral evidence of P.W.1, the documents Exts.A1 to A18 were also relied upon. They showed that petitioners 2 and 3 are qualified enough to run a computer tuition class. 3. The educational qualifications of petitioners 2 and 3 were not disputed even while the tenant was examined as R.W.1. For all these RCR 175/2008 -2- reasons, it was found that the need pleaded is genuine. Even though it was contended that the petition schedule building is not suitable for conducting a tuition class, that was also rejected by the Rent Control Court. As regards the benefit of the second proviso is concerned, the finding was against the tenant. 4. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court on these aspects. A reading of the judgment shows that the contentions have been considered in detail. The Appellate Authority also noticed that the tenant never disputed the qualifications of the landladies. It was found that they cannot run the computer centre in the residential building. The contention that the subsequent events affected the bonafide need pleaded, was also considered by the Appellate Authority. It was found that merely because the second petitioner married in the meanwhile and the third petitioner is having some temporary avocations, that will not defeat the bonafide need pleaded. On the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act also, the finding is against the tenant. 5. Therefore, we find that in exercise of the powers of revision, we will not be justified in re-appreciating the evidence to enter upon different conclusions than that is taken by the authorities below. RCR 175/2008 -3- 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for some time to vacate the premises. We grant four months time from today to the petitioner to vacate the premises on condition that he files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Rent Control Court undertaking to vacate the premises unconditionally on or before the expiry of four months from today and also to pay the arrears of rent, if any, due and continue to pay the monthly rent till the premises are vacated. The affidavit shall be filed within three weeks from today. If any of the conditions aforesaid is violated, then the order of eviction will become enforceable at once. Subject to the above, the revision petition is dismissed, however no costs. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/