IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 207 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.48/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THALASSERY RCP.40/2004 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ KUNNATH JOSE, S/O.CHAKKO, AGED 53 YEARS, BUSINESS, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM, P.O.PERAVOOR, THALASSERI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ KARATHODI RAJAN, S/O.VALIYA CHANDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, PENSIONER, RESIDING AT MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM, P.O.PERAVOOR. ADV. SRI.C.KHALID FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 207 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 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 which was passed by the Rent Control Court against the revision petitioner/tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and on the ground of cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v). 2. In this revision, various grounds are raised assailing the order of eviction passed by the statutory authorities. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us in detail on the basis of all the grounds. However, having gone through the impugned judgment and having kept in mind the limits of our jurisdiction under Section 20 and the judicial precedents pertaining to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, we do not find any warrant for interference with the impugned judgment. RCR.No.207/2011 2 The findings entered by the statutory authorities are all founded on legal evidence available on record. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there are receipts to show that the rent is not in arrears to the extent presently found by the statutory authorities. We find it difficult to accept the above submission in view of the concurrent findings entered in that regard by the statutory authorities. 3. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. On this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner/tenant to surrender the premises. According to the learned counsel, as of now, the tenant is conducting business. The cessation was only during the period of six months anterior to the litigation. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the landlord will not stand in the way of this court granting reasonable time provided it is ensured that the arrears of rent presently found by the statutory authorities to be due, is paid shortly. 4. Having considered the above submissions, the result of the revision petition would be as follows; RCR.No.207/2011 3 i). The revision is dismissed. The eviction order passed against the revision petitioner on the grounds under Section 11 (3) and 11 (4)(v) will be kept in abeyance for a period of one year from today subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlord on or before 15/6/2012 and also undertakes that he will pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate of Rs.1,000/- per month without fail till actual surrender of the building is given. ii). The eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) is kept in abeyance for a period of three months only. It is open to the revision petitioner to have that order vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11(2)(c) and applying to the Rent Control Court. If the revision petitioner is not able to get RCR.No.207/2011 4 the eviction order under Section 11 (2)(b) is vacated, it is open to the landlord to levy execution of that eviction order notwithstanding the time that we have granted as above in respect of the eviction orders passed under Section 11 (3) and 11 (4)(v) of the Act. We make it clear that, even in respect of the eviction order under Section 11(3) and 11 (4)(v), the tenant will become eligible for the benefit of time as allowed above only if he files affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk