IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 355 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.6/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KASARAGOD RCP.2/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONERS(S): APPELLANTS 2-4, L.RS OF THE TENANT/RESPTS. -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LIZAMMA JOSE, W/O.JOSE PUTHUMANA, ATHINJAL BUS WAITING SHED, NOW RESIDING AT KALLIYOTH, PERIYA VILLAGE, PERIYA POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. JERIN JOSE, S/O.JOSE PUTHUMANA, RESIDING AT -DO-. 3. NANZY MARIA JOSE (MINOR), D/O.JOSE PUTHUMANA, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER LIZAMMA JOSE, RESIDING AT -DO-, -DO-, MOILAKKIRIYATH SUMAYYA, D/O.ANJILLATH HUSSAN HAJI, R/AT HYDROS MOSQUE,SOUTH CHITHERI,CHITHERI VILLAGE PIN-671531, HOSDRUG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETTIONER: --------------- MOILAKKIRIYATH SUMAYYA D/O. ANJILLATH HUSSAN HAJI RESIDING AT HYDROS MOSQUE SOUTH CHITHARI CHITHARI VILLAGE PIN 671 531 HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 355 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority on the grounds under Section 11 (2)(b) and under Section 11 (4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965. 2. At the very outset Sri. M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/tenants submitted that as regards the ground under Section 11 (2)(b), it will suffice that the petitioners are granted reasonable time for getting that order vacated by making requisite deposits. As regards the ground of reconstruction, it was conceded by the learned counsel that the evidence on record will indicate that the condition of the building is so dilapidated that reconstruction may be warranted. RCR.No.355/2011 2 But, the learned counsel submitted that there is an impending proposal for acquiring the property and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the reconstruction proposal is not going to become reality. 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of Mr.Gopikrishnan Nambiar. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and that of the order of the Rent Control Court. We find that the point, which is highlighted before us, was considered by the statutory authorities and both of them concurrently held that no acceptable legal evidence is available on record to enter a finding that there is any definite proposal for acquiring the site of the building for road widening. We are of the view that within the well delineated contours of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, there is no warrant for interference as the findings concurrently entered by the two statutory authorities cannot be said to be illegal, irregular or improper. The revision necessarily has to fail and the same will stand dismissed. However, we are inclined to issue notice to the respondents to determine the extent of time to be granted to the RCR.No.355/2011 3 revision petitioners/tenants for surrendering the premises. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk