IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 173 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.13/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD RCP.11/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REV. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------------------------- E.S.NITHYANANDAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. SIVALINGAM, OM MAHAL BUILDING, HOSDURG, P.O.KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER. ------------------------------------- K.SHYAMALA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. A KRISHNAN, CHEMMATTOM VAYAL, BALLA VILLAGE, P.O.KANHANGD, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 315. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.173 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Challenge in this rent control revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act is to the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 2. The respondent/landlady filed the rent control petition before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act on the ground that the revision petitioner/tenant has kept rent in arrears from May 22, 2004 onwards and that landlady bonafide requires the petition schedule building for her husband to start a jwellery shop, that tenant is not depending on the income of the business conducted by him in the shop room for his livelihood and that there are other suitable buildings available in that locality for the tenant to shift his business. 3. Revision petitioner/tenant resisted the petition contending R.C.R.No.173/2011 2 that there was no arrears of rent, that the bonafide need put forward by the landlady is not genuine, that he depends on the income of the business conducted in the petition schedule building for his livelihood and that landlady has other shop rooms in her possession to start business. 4. Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the landlady. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were produced by the tenant before the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court by order dated June 17, 2006 rejected the claim of the landlady for eviction under Section 11(2) of the Act, but allowed her prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court found that the bonafide need claimed by the landlady is genuine, that tenant is not entitled to protection under the Second Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge, Kasargod) confirmed the said findings of the Rent Control Court by judgment dated January 20, 2011. The tenant has now come up in revision challenging the above findings of the Rent Control Court as well as that of the Appellate Authority. R.C.R.No.173/2011 3 5. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we felt that even without issuing notice to the respondent/landlady, this revision can be disposed of. Hence revision petitioner was heard. 6. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the landlady and tenant before the Rent Control Court and the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of the Act. That being so, the revision petition has to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for one year's time to surrender the building. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that time upto 31/12/2011 can be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender possession of the building on the following conditions ; R.C.R.No.173/2011 4 1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court within two weeks from this date agreeing to surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building to the landlady on or before 31/12/2011. 2) The tenant shall pay arrears of rent upto date to the landlady within one month from this date and future rent as and when the same falls due till the date of surrender, failing which, the tenant will not be entitled to the benefit of the time granted by this order. The Rent Control Revision is disposed of with the above directions. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. R.C.R.No.173/2011 5 R.C.R.No.173/2011 6