IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 102 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.10/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDL. DISTRICT COURT), NORTH PARAVUR RCP.1/2005 of RENT CONTROLLER ( MUNSIFF COURT), N. PARAVUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KAMALAKSHY, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.SIVANANDAN, KOVATTU VEETTIL, KARUMALLOOR KARA, KARAMALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. SASI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.SIVANANDAN, KOVATTU VEETTIL, KARUMALLOOR KARA, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE. 3. SUMA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.SIVANANDAN, KOVATTU VEETTIL, KARUMALLOOR KARA, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE RESPONDENT : RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MARY, AGED 54, W/O.VARGHESE, MENACHERY RESIDING AT EDAN, THATTAMPADY, KARUMALLOOR KARA,DO. VILLAGE PARAVUR TALUK, REP.POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND HUSBAND M.C.VARGHESE,RETD.ENGINEER, S/O.CHAKKUNNI, EDAN, THATTAMPADY, KARUMALLOOR KARA, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- R.C. Rev. 102 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 29, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. In this revision by the legal heirs of the deceased tenant under sec.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965), the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under sec.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act is under challenge. 2. The landlady sought eviction of the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent and for her bona fide need for occupation. The Rent Control Court found that there is arrears of rent since January 1, 1991 and that the landlady requires the petition schedule shop room for her own occupation. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said findings of the Rent Control Court. During the pendency of the RCP, the tenant died. His wife and children are impleaded as additional respondents. R.C. Rev. 102 of 2009 2 3. Sri B. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that there are no arrears of rent due and that the landlady has other rooms in her possession and does not require the petition schedule shop room for her occupation. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and having gone through the evidence adduced by both sides before the Rent Control Court, we are of the view that there is no ground to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under sec.20 of the Act. That being so, the revision petition has only to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner lastly sought time for surrendering the petition schedule building. In the of the case, we feel that six months time can be granted for the tenant to vacate the premises. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioners are granted six months' time from today for surrendering the petition schedule building on condition that they file an affidavit before the Execution Court within one week stating that they will surrender peaceful possession of the R.C. Rev. 102 of 2009 3 petition schedule building by 30.11.2009. The revision petitioners shall pay the entire arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court and shall pay a sum of Rs.100/- per month for use and occupational damages till 30.11.2009. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-