IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 RCRev..No. 28 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.17/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM RCP.5/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/CR.PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUGATHAN, AGED 48, S/O.C.R.BHASKARAN, CHIRAPURATHU, MARAVANTHURUTHU, K.S.MANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2. SOMAN, AGED 40, S/O.C.R.BHASKARAN, CHIRAPURATHU, MARAVANTHURUTHU, K.S.MANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. SARASAMMA, AGED 37, D/O.C.R.BHASKARAN, MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, T.V.PURAM.P.O., VAIKOM. 4. VALSAMMA, AGED 34, D/O.C.R.BHASKARAN, CHIRAPURATHU, MARAVANTHURUTHU, K.S.MANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------- DR.B.RAVIKUMAR, AGED 55, S/O.BHASKARA KAIMAL, PRASANTHY, EDAVATTOM, K.S.MANGALAM, THALAYOLAPARAMBU. BY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== R.C.R.No.28 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair,J. The revision petitioners are the tenants. The respondent is the landlord. 2. The land lord sought eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Rent Controller allowed the application on both the grounds. The Appellate Authority affirmed the same. Hence this revision. 3. The correctness of the finding under Section 11(3) of the Act alone was canvassed before us. The land lord's wife is unemployed. She requires the demised room for starting a ready made garments shop. She, was doing that business in a room at a remote place. The tenanted room is in an important locality in Thalayolaparambu Town. Therefore, she would like to do the business there. The land lord has no other suitable room to run RCR 28/08 -: 2 :- the business. The tenants have got other rooms adjacent to the scheduled room to conduct their business. Further, there are vacant buildings in the locality suitable for shifting their business. They have got other source of income for their livelihood also. On the above pleadings, the land lord sought eviction. 4. The tenants resisted the R.C.P. contending that the land lord is a very affluent person and therefore his wife has no necessity to start any business in ready made garments. The need put forward is only a convenient ruse to evict the tenants. They are solely depending on the income derived from the business carried on in the scheduled building. No suitable rooms are available in the locality. Therefore, they prayed for rejection of the claim made under Section 11(3) of the Act. 5. As mentioned earlier, both the authorities concurrently held in favour of the land lord. The learned counsel for the petitioners in this revision mainly attacked the findings of the authorities under the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The learned counsel referred to the deposition of PW2, who is a Junior Superintendent of Thalayolaparambu Grama Panchayath, to show that there are no RCR 28/08 -: 3 :- rooms available in the locality. But the authorities below mainly relied on the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 to find that there are rooms available in the locality. DW2 has stated that the original tenant's son, the first petitioner herein, was in possession of a room adjacent to the scheduled room from 1994 onwards. He transferred the same in favour of somebody else in October, 2002 after filing the Rent Control Petition. DW2 also deposed that even now the said room is used by the first respondent for stocking the goods for his business. Further, when DW1 was in the box, suggestions were made to him regarding the availability of the room in the locality. But he pretended ignorance and stated that he was not aware whether rooms were available in the locality. So, the courts below concurrently found that the first respondent did not take any interest to find out whether suitable rooms are available in the locality. We also went through the deposition of DW1, a copy of which was made available to us by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We fully agree with the views of the authorities below on this point. So the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners against the findings of the authorities below under the RCR 28/08 -: 4 :- second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be accepted. 6. In the result, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for some time to vacate the premises. The petitioners - tenants are given six months time from today to vacate the room on condition that they file an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to vacate the premises within six months from today. The undertaking shall be filed within three weeks from today. The arrears of rent, if any, remaining unpaid shall be deposited before the Execution Court within one month from today. The rent due from time to time shall also be paid or deposited promptly till the room is vacated. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 25/1