IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 32 of 2011 -------------------------- RCA.17/2010 of DIST COURT, ALAPPUZHA RCP.30/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- A. NAZAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KARIM, VADAKKE VELIYIL VEETTIL, THONDANKULANGARA WARD, SOUTH ARYAD MURI, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- MARIYAMMA JOB, 78 YEARS, W/O. V Z JOB, VAIKATHUKARAN HOUSE, CULLEN ROAD, ALLAPPUZHA. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 32 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant has come up in revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. The order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (4)(iv) of the Act. A larger building consisting of 17 rooms was sought to be evicted for reconstruction of the building contending that the building requires reconstruction and that required plan and licence have been obtained by the landlord for that purpose. The objections raised by the tenant were found against by the learned Rent Controller. The tenant preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 2. Serious arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contending that the authorities below have not appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and that there are no sufficient grounds to order eviction under Section 11 (4)(iv). 3. We have gone through the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the learned Appellate RCR.No.32/2011 2 Authority. We find no reason to upset the findings entered by the two authorities below. We are reminded of the contours of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below. Hence, we decline to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. The revision petition will stand dismissed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that one year time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. Considering all the aspects, we are inclined to grant six months time to the tenant to vacate the premises on condition that the revision petitioner should discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and should also pay occupational charges at the current rent rate till actual surrender of the vacant possession of building . PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk