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 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 92 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.18/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , KASARAGOD RCP.9/2007 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ THE DIRECTOR, PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANNUR P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. L.B.RUKYA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.LATE T.ABDUL REHIMAN MASTER, RESIDING AT JAZEERA MAHAL, P.O.PADANNAKKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. T.JAZEERA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.LATE T.ABDUL REHIMAN MASTER, RESIDING AT JAZEERA MAHAL, P.O.PADANNAKKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. T.NAZREENA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.LATE T.ABDUL REHIMAN MASTER, RESIDING AT JAZEERA MAHAL, P.O.PADANNAKKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 92 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision challenging the order of eviction concurrently passed by the courts below under Section 11(3) of the Act. The need projected in the petition was that the 3rd petitioner in the rent control petition (PW1) intends to start a medical diagnostic centre in the petition schedule building. At the time of filing the petition, she was studying in the first year M.Sc Microbiology in Sri.Sayeed College at Taliparamba. It was stated that she would complete her course within a year and after completing the course she intends to start the medical diagnostic centre as pleaded . 2. The tenant resisted the petition contending that it is only a pretext for eviction and that the 3rd petitioner in the rent control petition has not acquired the required qualification nor RCR.No.92/2011 2 was she studying Microbiology as stated in the petition. After analysing the evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the need projected is bona fide. Hence order of eviction was passed. 3. The learned Appellate Authority after re-appraising the evidence, concurred with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 4. Sri.K.P. Harish, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant would vehemently argue that no document whatsoever was produced before the Rent Control Court or even before the Appellate Court to show that PW1 has passed M.Sc.Microbiology so as to start a Medical Diagnostic Centre. The learned counsel further submitted that if only she gets the certificate to the effect that she has passed M.Sc. Microbiology, she can start a Medical Diagnostic Centre and if only such a certificate is produced, the concerned authority can issue licence or permit to start such a Medical Diagnostic Centre. At the time of filing the rent control petition the 3rd petitioner (PW1) did not complete her studies, but it can not be a reason to doubt the bona fides of the need projected RCR.No.92/2011 3 by her. But at the same time, there is a strong point in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that unless PW1 gets a certificate after passing M.Sc Microbiology, she cannot conduct a Medical Diagnostic Centre. But in all other respects we hold that the finding of the two courts below does not warrant interference. We are of the view that a condition can be imposed that before ordering delivery of the petition schedule building, the Execution Court should ensure that the certificate showing that PW1 has passed M.Sc. Microbiology is produced. In view of what is stated above, we find no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the order passed by the court below. The revision petition is dismissed. 4.The revision petitioner is granted six months time from today to vacate the petition schedule building. It is further made clear that the execution court should ensure that certificate showing that PW1 has passed M.Sc. Microbiology is produced before ordering delivery of the petition schedule building. i.e. only on production of such a certificate, the Execution Court can order delivery of the building. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner will send RCR.No.92/2011 4 a copy of this judgment to the landlord by registered post with A/D. Since we have today dismissed this revision petition and granted six months time to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises, there shall be stay of execution of the order for two months from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk