IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 RCRev..No. 96 of 2010() ----------------------------------- RCA.NO. 92/2007 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCPNO. .89/2003 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. -------------------------------------------------------- DASAN, S/O.CHATHU, NAGARIKUNNATH, PERUMPADAPPU JUNCTION, AGASTHYANMUZHI, OMASSERY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ VAYALIL MOIN, S/O.CHERIYAMMAD HAJI, SAFA MANZIL, KUMARANALLOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE BY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts R.C.R.NO.96/2010 O R D E R Today also there is no representation on either sides. The R.C.R. Will stand dismissed for default. 11/04/2011 SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.96 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The Rent Control Court disallowed the claim on both the grounds. Reappreciating the evidence, the learned Appellate Authority found that the need put forward by the landlord is bona fide and granted eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 2. Sri.Salil Narayanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that at the time of filing the rent control petition, the landlord' son was only a student and so the Rent Control Court has rightly held that the need projected in the petition is not bona fide and as such the finding of the Rent Control Court should have been upheld by the learned Appellate Authority. This contention is resisted by Sri.Ramdas appearing for the landlord. Only for the reason that the landlord's son did not complete his MCA when the rent control petition was RCR.No.96/2010 2 filed, it cannot be said that the need of the father to accommodate his son to start a computer service centre in the petition schedule building is not a bona fide. The landlord was examined as PW1. The son of the landlord, for whose need the petition schedule building was sought to be evicted was also examined and he has testified as to his need for starting a computer centre. The learned Appellate Authority after surveying the entire evidence found that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. 3. We have gone through the order passed by the Rent Control court and also the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. We are in perfect agreement with the view taken by the learned Appellate Authority that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. Though the tenant contended that he depends mainly on the income derived from the barber shop conducted by him in the petition schedule business, he could succeed in establishing the same. Besides, he could not substantiate the second limb of the second proviso. In other words, he could not prove that there are no other vacant buildings available in the locality for shifting his barber shop. The RCR.No.96/2010 3 finding so entered by the learned Appellate Authority also warrants no interference. We are of the view that the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority can be confirmed. We do so. 4. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a poor barber and so at least one year's time may be granted to the revision petitioner to vacate the petition schedule building. Though this request is opposed by the learned counsel for the landlord, we are inclined to grant time till 31/3/2012 to the revision petitioner for surrendering the petition schedule premises, but subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the landlord on or before 31/3/2012 and undertaking further that he will discharge arrears of rent if any within one month from today and he will pay occupation charges at the existing rent rate till the actual date of surrender. RCR.No.96/2010 4 We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted as above only if he files affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein without fail. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk