IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No.308 of 2010 --------------------------- RCA.53/2009 of 1ST ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.194/2004 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL COURT-II,KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER/.APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- K.P.SREEJAYAN,S/O.LATE K.P.GOVINDAN, KANIYAT POOTHAKANDIYIL 'SAG', KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,KUNNAMANGALAM PO, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- DR.SUBRAMANIAN,S/O.K.P.CHERIYAKKAN, AGED 66 YEARS,'NAYANAM', KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, ALONG WITH RCR NO.309 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. Nos.308 & 309 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Though apparently attractive grounds have been raised in these revisions and Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous and persuasive arguments in support of all the grounds, we are unable to find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed under sub Section 3 of Section 11. Sri.Rajendran, in fact, placed before us the photographs of the building where the landlord is presently having his clinic. He also drew our attention to the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner of the above building. We do not think that there is R. C. R. Nos.308 & 309 of 2010 -2- space or facility available in that building for the landlord to conduct the proposed business of selling spectacles in the above building which is in fact a small building situated in the residential compound of the landlord. 2. Having regard to the well defined contours of the jurisdiction under Section 20, we are not in a position to say that the conclusions concurrently arrived at by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in favour of the landlord are vitiated. 3. The revisions necessarily will have to fail and will stand dismissed. We dismiss the revisions. 4. After we pronounced the order Sri.T.G.Rajendran submitted that if notice is issued to the respondents there is every likelihood of the parties coming to a compromise. He further submitted that even if a compromise is not arrived at, the revision petitioner may have to be given an unusually long R. C. R. Nos.308 & 309 of 2010 -3- period of time for surrendering the premises. In view of the above submissions though we have dismissed the RCRs we are inclined to issue notice. Issue urgent notice by speed post. Post on 29/10/10. I.A. Nos.2557 & 2560 of 2010 Interim stay for six weeks. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-