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 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 223 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.157/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE-III RCP.86/2007 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ C.K.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KOMU, CHERUKUNNETH, MANASSERI, THAZHEKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ THONDIPARAMBIL RUKHIYA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.UNNI MOYI IN KODIYATHUR, AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673 602. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.NO.223 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 ( herein after referred to as the 'Act'), the tenant challenges the judgment of Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2) (b) and Section 11(3) of the Act. 2. The respondent/landlady filed the O.P. before the Rent Control Court II, Kozhikode seeking eviction under Section 11(2) (b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act on the ground that the tenant has kept rent in arrears, that she bonafide requires the petition schedule building for her dependent son Dr.Nazeem for starting a Dental Clinic, that she has no other building of her own, that the tenant is not doing or carrying any active business or trade in the petition schedule premises and that tenant is not depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. RCR.No.223/2011 2 3. Revision petitioner/tenant resisted the claim contending that the bonafide need urged by the landlady is not genuine, that he is still conducting jwellery business in the petition schedule shop room, that he is depending mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and that no other suitable building is available in the locality to shift his business. 4. The landlady was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on her side before the Rent Control Court. The tenant got himself examined as RW1 and he produced Exts.B1 to B7 series on his side. Commissioner's report was marked as Ext.C1. On an appreciation of evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant has kept rent in arrears, that landlady bonafide need the petition schedule shop room for her son to conduct Dental Clinic and that the tenant is not entitled to the benefits of first and second proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 11 of the Act and also that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months and ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(4)(v) and Section 11(3) of the Act. 5. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority RCR.No.223/2011 3 confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) of the Act, but set aside the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. The tenant has now come up in revision challenging the said judgment of the Appellate Authority. 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 under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. 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. Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for one year's time to surrender the building. Taking into consideration the fact that the tenant is RCR.No.223/2011 4 conducting a jwellery shop in the petition schedule building, which he has to shift to some other place, we feel that time upto January 31, 2012 can be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender possession of the building on the following conditions ; 1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court on or before June 30, 2011 agreeing to surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building to the landlady on or before 31/01/2012. On receipt of the said affidavit, the execution court shall defer the delivery to 01/02/2012. 2) The tenant shall pay arrears of rent upto date to the landlady on or before June 30, 2011 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. RCR.No.223/2011 5 The Revision Petition is dismissed with the above directions. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. RCR.No.223/2011 6