IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 16 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.111/2003 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR RCP.69/1999 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 1,2,4 AND 5: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHA, AGED 54, W/O.KAKKERI RAMU, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. GOURI, KAKKERI HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. SHAJI, S/O.SANTHA, KAKKERI HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. SHEEJA, D/O.SANTHA, KAKKERI HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND COUNTER PETITIONERS 3 & 6: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PAULSON, KAVALAKAT OVUNGAL THOMA, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. RAVI, BROTHER OF KAKKERI RAMU, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR. 3. SHIBU, S/O.KAKKERI RAMU, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.E.G.PARAMESWARAN,CAVEATOR. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No. 16 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners and in this petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, ( Act 2 of 1965) and they impugn the order of eviction passed concurrently by the rent control court and the appellate authority on the ground under Section 11(3). In fact, the landlord had invoked the grounds under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) also for evicting the revision petitioners. But since the entire arrears of rent was discharged by the revision petitioners, the landlord did not press for an order under Section 11(2)(b). The courts below declined order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) and in this revision petition we are concerned only with the ground under Section 11(3). 2. The defence of the revision petitioners to the landlord's need and claim under Section 11(3) was that the same is not bona fide, that the need is projected only as a ruse for getting eviction with the RCR.No.16/09 2 intent of letting out the building on higher rent to some new tenants, that the landlord has let out other portions of the larger building of which the petition schedule building is a part at a time when he was allegedly harbouring the need. The petitioners also contended that they are entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3). 3. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 to A9 and the oral testimony of the landlord as PW1 and the counter oral evidence of one of the revision petitioners as RW1 would hold that the need of the landlord is bonafide. It was also held that the tenants failed in establishing that they satisfy either of the ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11(3) and accordingly ordered eviction. The appellate authority on re-appreciating the evidence concurred with the findings of the rent control court. 4. Though Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has addressed us strenuously and persuasively in support of the various grounds raised in the revision petition, we are not satisfied that the findings which have been concurrently entered by the rent RCR.No.16/09 3 control court and the appellate authority in the context of the ground under Section 11(3) are vitiated by any irregularity, illegality or impropriety warranting correction under Section 10. The contours of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 are well defined and when we confine ourselves to those contours, we do not find any ground for interfering with the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. As his last submission, Sri.Sreekumar requested that the revision petitioner be granted six months time to vacate the premises. We feel that reasonable time can be granted even without notice to the respondents. Therefore, the RCR will stand dismissed issuing the following directions: 1) The first revision petitioner, the petitioner who is actually in physical possession of the premises will file an affidavit before the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur which is in seizin of execution proceedings in RCP.No.69/99 stating that he will peacefully surrender the petition schedule premises on RCR.No.16/09 4 or before 30/05/2009. 2) The petitioner will also discharge arrears of rent if any which has accrued in respect of petition schedule building to the respondents within one month from today and will continue to pay the rent which falls due till the date of his surrender without fail. 3) The affidavit as directed above shall be filed on or before the 31st January instant. 4) If the execution court notices such an affidavit, that court will adjourn the execution petition to 01/06/2009. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.16/09 5