IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 159 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.64/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA RCP.86/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 2 TO 5/ RESPONDENTS 4 TO 5: -------------------- 1. ASOKAN, S/O ACHUTHAN, AGED 34 YEARS BUSINESS IN SHOP NO.34/440 , EDODI, VADAKARA 2. BROTHER ANIL, S/O ACHUTHAN, AGED 32 YEARS IN FRONTO OF SHOP NO.34/440, EDODI, VADAKARA 3. CHALIL USHA, W/O BALAN, PUTHUPPANNA AMSAM DESAM, VADAKARA TALUK 4. SHITIN, S/O USHA, W/O BALAN PUTHUPPANNA AMSAM DESAM, VADAKARA BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9/PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------- 1. P.K.KARTHIYAYANI, D/O CHATHU NAIR, AGED 60 YRS. SWASTHAM, SNEHA NIVAS, VILLIAPPALLY AMSAM DESAM, VADAKARA TALUK 2. DAUGHTER P.SHYLAJA, D/O GOPALAN NAIR AGED 39 YRS. SWASTHAM, SHEENA NIVAS, VALIYAPALLY AMSAM DESAM, VADAKARA DISTRICT RCR.NO.159/09 3. SISTER P.SHYAMA, D./O GOPALAN NAIR, KELOTH HOUSE, KOYILANDY TALUK THIRUVANGOOR AMSAM 4. SISTER P.SHARMILA, D/O GOPALAN NAIR LESITHA MANDIR AGED 32 YEARS SWASTHAM , NUT STREET, P.O.VADAKARA AMSAM, DESAM 5. SISTER P.SHEENA, D/O GOPALAN NAIR SWASTHAM AGED 30 YEARS CHAMMANNIYULLATHIL KUNNMKODE, THOOVAKUNI ( VIA) , PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK 6. R.RAVI, S/O KUNJURAMAN, AGED 50 YRS., SWASTHAM OOTTUKANDATHIL THAZHAKKUNIYIL THAMASAM NR. IBP PETROL PUMP, NARAYANA NAGARAM VADAKARA AMSAM DESAM 7. SISTER “ VEETIL NALINI, AGED 48 YRS., SWASTHAM -DO- 8. SHINOOP, S/O PADMARAJAN, SHEENA NIVAS, VILLYAPPALLY AMSAM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK 9. SHILVA, D/O PADMARAJAN, - DO- ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB FOR R1,3,4,5,8,9 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.159 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Tenants are in revision against the orders of eviction concurrently passed against them by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of arrears of rent, sub letting and bonafide own occupation. We need not be concerned in this revision against the orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Rent Control Act since it is only a tentative order of eviction and is liable to be vacated by the Rent Control Court once the tenant makes the deposit and moves the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(c) and therefore as regards the orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b), we only observe that it is open to the tenants/revision petitioners to get that order vacated within a period of thirty days from today by filing requisite applications and making requisite deposits or payments. 2. The landlords' case in the context of ground of sub letting was that respondents 3, 4 and 5 in the Rent Control Petition are RCR.No.159/09 2 unauthorised sub lessees or transferees . The defence of the tenants revision petitioners was that they are lessees in their own rights since the alleged sub lessees have atoned the lease hold rights in favour of the landlord. In this regard Exts.B1 and B2 receipts issued by one of the sons of the original landlady was very strongly relied on. Exts.B1 and B2 were to the effect that amounts necessary for thatching this building was received from the third respondent in the RCP , one of the alleged sub lessee by one Krishnan Nair. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority however did not attach much importance to Exts.B1 and B2 for the reason that the building cannot be identified clearly from Exts.B1 and B2 and also for the reason that the recipient of the amounts paid in Exts.B1 and B2 was not the landlord. Having regard to the parameters applicable to the exercise of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we are unable to say that the finding of the authorities below in this context is so unreasonable as to warrant invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 20. 3. The prominent ground on which eviction was sought for was the ground of own occupation. The ground was that the second RCR.No.159/09 3 petitioner in the RCP who was presently settled at Bangalore wanted to come back to her home town Vadakara and to occupy the petition schedule building for conducting business. On evaluation of the evidence which was adduced by the parties including the oral evidence of the second petitioner in the RCP, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need was bonafide. It was also concluded that the tenants are not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 11. The tenants preferred an appeal against the order. During the pendency of the appeal, the second petitioner in the RCP passed away. It was contended by the appellant before the Rent Control Court that the need has abated. This contention did not find favour with the Appellate Authority which accepted the case of the legal heirs of the deceased landlord that the need subsists and that they want the petition schedule building for conducting the business which their mother wanted to. We find that the view taken by the Appellate Authority in this regard is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting correction of the judgment of the Appellate Authority. RCR.No.159/09 4 4. Sri.P.M.Habeeb, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased landlady submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased landlady are at present in Vadakara only and that they will be occupying the building once they get eviction. The above submission is recorded. 5. As his last submission, Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought for one year's time to vacate the premises. The above request is opposed by Sri.P.M.Habeeb. We are not inclined to grant one year's time as requested by Sri.Rajan Babu. However, we feel that in the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting atleast six month's time. Even as we confirm the orders of the courts below and dismiss the revision petition, there will be a direction to the execution court to adjourn the E.P. to 01/02/2010 subject to the following conditions ; 1) The revision petitioners will pay the entire arrears of rent which has fallen due in respect of the petition schedule building ( less any amount already paid) within one month from today and they shall also RCR.No.159/09 5 continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate till such time as they make actual surrender. 2) The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit before the execution court within three weeks from today undertaking to pay rent as directed above and also undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the landlords on or before 31/01/2010. The Execution Petition need be adjourned by the execution court only if the affidavit as directed above is filed within three weeks from today. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.159/09 6