IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 21 of 2011(B) ----------------------- RCA.8/2010 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA RCP.3/2009 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, KATTUPARAMBIL BUNGLOW, RAMANCHIRA BHAGAM, MUTHOOR.P.O., MUTHOOR MURI, KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- JOHN THOMAS, S/O.YOHANNAN, MADATHILETHU VEEDU, MANJADI.P.O., AMALLOOR MURI, KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK-683563. ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN FOR R1 SRI.A.RAGHAVAN FOR R1 SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 21 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. O R D E R Balkrishnan,J. The challenge in this revision is the order of eviction concurrently passed by the two statutory authorities u/Ss. 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. Though order of eviction was passed by the learned Rent Controller u/s 11(4)(ii) of the Act also that was reversed by the learned Appellate Authority. 2. The landlord contended that he bonafide needs the petition schedule building to accommodate his daughter-in-law who is dependent on her to start business in electrical items and that he is not having in his possession any other building to enable his daughter-in-law to conduct the aforesaid business. It was further R.C.R. NO. 21 OF 2011 -:2:- contended that the revision petitioner/tenant is having in his possession another building reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same town and so he is liable to be evicted u/s 11(4)(iii) also. Further it was contended that the tenant/revision petitioner ceased to occupy the petition schedule building continuously for more than six months without any reasonable cause. The tenant/revision petitioner refuted the contentions raised by the landlord taking all available grounds. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence the learned Rent Controller found that the need put forward by the landlord was genuine and it was also found that the landlord was not in possession of any other building in his possession to provide the same to enable his daughter-in-law to conduct the business. The R.C.R. NO. 21 OF 2011 -:3:- tenant could not substantiate his plea that he is entitled to the protection under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The evidence regarding continuous cessation of occupation for more than six months without any reasonable cause also could not be assailed by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller thus allowed the eviction u/s 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The learned Appellate Authority, after reappreciating the evidence concurred with the view taken by the learned Rent Controller. 3. Sri.Sathish Ninan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has very strenuously argued referring to all the grounds raised by him in the revision petition assailing the findings of the Courts below. We have gone through the order passed by the Rent Controller and also the judgment passed by the learned R.C.R. NO. 21 OF 2011 -:4:- Appellate Authority. It is seen that the order passed by the authorities below was founded on legal evidence. Sitting in revision u/s 20 of the Act, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and take a different conclusion. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of eviction passed by the two Courts below. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that tenant may be granted one year time for vacating the premises. Learned counsel for the landlord has opposed the request. We find that if time is to be granted the tenant/revision petitioner is to be directed to pay a reasonable rent presently prevailing in that locality. Considering all the aspects we find that the revision petitioner should be R.C.R. NO. 21 OF 2011 -:5:- directed to pay occupation charges at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the landlord with effect from 1.3.11 if he wants to continue to occupy the premises for a period of one year. Considering these aspects we are inclined to grant one year time to the tenant to surrender the petition schedule building to the landlord on the following conditions. 5. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent within one year from this day and undertaking further to discharge the arrears of rent within one month and to pay occupation charges at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month promptly and regularly as and when the same falls due till the date of actual surrender. It is made clear that the revision R.C.R. NO. 21 OF 2011 -:6:- petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings contained therein. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/-