IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 287 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.97/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ,ERNAKULAM RCP.3/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- M/S. CHARANKATTU COIR MANUFACTURING CO.(P) LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR C.R.DEVARAJ, AGED 49, S/O.C.V.RAJAPPAN, POST BOX NO.7. CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- ROOPA PAI, AGED 47, W/O.C.RATNAKRA PAI SUKRITH, NEAR SREE GANAPATHY TEMPLE, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH FOR CAVEATOR SRI.ROSHAN IYPE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 3487/2009 IN RCR 287/2009 DISMISSED 7/12/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 287 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant, a company, is in revision against the decision of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently ordering eviction on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The need projected by the landlady was that her husband Sri. Rathnakara Pai, who was carrying on business in jewellery on Broadway Ernakulam under the name and style of “P.P.Chandrasekhara Pai & Sons”, is ordered to be evicted by the authorities under the Rent Control Act and that the petition schedule premises is needed bona fide, so that Sri.Rathnakara Pai can shift his business over to the same. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the pleadings and the evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A10 and the oral evidence of PW1 on the side of the landlords and Ext.B1 and the oral evidence of one of the Directors of the tenant company as RW1 on the side of the tenant, apart from Ext.C1, came to the conclusion that the need RCR.No.287/2009 2 projected in the Rent Control Petition for own occupation was a bona fide one and that the Rent Control Petition is not liable to fail by virtue of any of the provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the tenant reappraised the evidence, however concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction, which was passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. In this revision under Section 20, the tenant has raised several grounds assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.P.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also those of Sri. Roshan Iype, who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the landlady. Even though Sri.Viswanathan addressed us very strenuously on all the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision, having scanned the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, which was confirmed by the impugned judgment, we are of the view that there is no warrant at all for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of RCR.No.287/2009 3 Act 2 of 1965 for interfering with the Appellate Authority's judgment. All the findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, we notice, are founded on evidence which was actually available on record. The learned counsel for the respondent placed before us a copy of the judgment in RCR No.88/2009 which will reveal that the landlady's case that her husband, who is to be accommodated in the petition schedule building, is ordered to be evicted from the building in which he is presently carrying on business at Broadway. Being a company and not a natural person, the tenant cannot aspire for the benefits of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. We are of the view that there is no irregularity, illegality and impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. 4. Sri.Viswanathan, as a last plea, requested that atleast an year's time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. This request was very stiffly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, who submitted that on the terms of the judgment in R.C.R. No. 88/2009, the landlord's husband is to surrender the petition schedule premises by RCR.No.287/2009 4 31/12/2009. We are of the view that on the facts and circumstances, which attend on this case, there is justification for granting time to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises, subject to the certain conditions, till 31/5/2010. 5. The result of the above discussion is that RCR fails and will stand dismissed. However, there will be a direction to the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule premises to the respondent till 31/5/2010 subject to the following conditions; A competent person representing the revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the Execution Court within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises on or before 31/5/2010. It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that the revision petitioner will discharge arrears of rent, if any, and will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate till such time as the premises are RCR.No.287/2009 5 surrendered as and when the same falls due. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk