IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No.31 of 2009 (D) ---------------------------- RCA.25/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD RCP.109/2004 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- E.A.SURENDRAN S/O.APPUKUTTAN, PROPRIETOR,SUNIRMA SHOE MART 15/75, COURT ROAD, SULTHANPET,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.D.SHENOY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ A.REMA, D/O.LATE SARADA AMMA RESIDING AT 15/81, COURT ROAD,SULTHANPET,PALAKKAD. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.31 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J In this Rent Control Revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the defeated tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 2. Landlady filed Rent Control Petition No.109/04 before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act alleging that she bona fide needs the petition schedule shop room to shift her business of conducting STD Booth and job typing works; that the tenant does not depend for his livelihood on the income derived from the business R. C. R. No.31 of 2009 -2- conducted by him in the petition schedule shop room and that she has no other shop room in her possession. 3. The tenant contested the claim contending that the bona fide need put forwarded by the landlady is not genuine; that her husband is a leading lawyer of the Palakkad Bar; that she does not intend to start any business in the petition schedule shop room; and that the tenant is depending for his livelihood on the sole income derived from the business conducted by him in the petition schedule shop room. 4. Before the Rent Control Court, the husband of the landlady was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The tenant was examined as RW1 and he produced Exts.B1 to B7. Commissioner's Report and sketch were marked as Exts.C1 and C2. R. C. R. No.31 of 2009 -3- 5. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of evidence found that the bona fide need projected by the landlady is genuine; that she has no other suitable building in that locality to conduct her business and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the first and second provisos to sub Section 3 of Section 11 of the Act and ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said finding. Now the tenant has come up in revision. 6. Sri.R.D.Shenoy, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the bona fide need put forwarded by the landlady is not genuine; that her brother Haridas is doing business in another shop room bearing Door No.15/70; and that she has no necessity now to shift her business of STD Booth and Job Typing works to the petition schedule shop room. R. C. R. No.31 of 2009 -4- 7. We find no merit in the above argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner. The Commissioner has reported in Ext.C1 that the brother of the landlady is conducting business in Door No.15/70 wherein the landlady was also conducting STD Booth and job typing business and that she is in dire need of the petition schedule shop room to shift her business. 8. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both sides before the Rent Control Court, the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent control Court and the Appellate Authority. There is no illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the findings rendered by the Rent Control Court which is confirmed R. C. R. No.31 of 2009 -5- by the Appellate Authority. That being so, the Revision Petition has to be dismissed. 9. Finally, Sri.R.D.Shenoy, the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner sought for one year's time to vacate the premises as the tenant is conducting business therein. The above request is seriously opposed by Sri.Chithambaresh, learned senior counsel for the landlady. Since the tenant is conducting business in the petition schedule shop room, we feel that time till 31/07/2010 can be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises on the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court within one month from this date agreeing to surrender peaceful possession of the building on or before 31/07/2010. Upon such affidavit, R. C. R. No.31 of 2009 -6- the execution court shall defer the delivery to 01/08/2010. 2) The tenant shall pay arrears of rent within one month from this date and also pay future monthly rents as and when the same falls due, failing which he will not be entitled to the benefit of time granted by this Court under this order. 10. In the result, this RCR is dismissed with the above directions. Parties shall bear their own costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-