IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU TUESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2007 / 26TH PAUSHA 1928 CRP.No. 2690 of 2002-F ---------------------- RCA.55/1997 of I ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT COURT), TRIVANDRUM RCP.1/1996 of THE RENT CONTROL COURT,(MUNSIFF COURT),VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- SOMAN, PRIYA BAKERY, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- VIVEKANANDAN, PRABHAVATHI MANDIRAM, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO. 6774/2002 IN CRP.NO. 2690/2002 DISMISSED. 16-1-2007 SD/-K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR,JUDGE SD/-K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ. ============================== C.R.P.NO. 2690 OF 2002 ============================ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2007 ORDER Udayabhanu,J. The revision petitioner/tenant has sought for setting aside the concurrent findings of the courts below allowing the prayer of the landlord/respondent under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control)Act,1965[Act 2 of 1965){for short 'the Act'). The landlord has sought for eviction on the ground that the premises are required for his son wanted to start a provision store. The premises is outstanding with the revision petitioner/tenant since 1985 with the prevailing rent of Rs.350/-per month. The revision petitioner is running a bakery in the premises. The courts below have found that the need set up by the respondent/landlord is bona fide. There was no serious contention on the part of the revision petitioner before the courts below. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority have also found that the revision petitioner/tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. We find that the above finding is also based on proper CRP.2690/2002 -2- grounds and there is no reason at all to disturb the findings of the courts below. 2. Considering the plea of the counsel for the revision petitioner that the tenant wanted at least one years time to vacate the premises and taking into consideration of the objection by the counsel for the landlord, we find that it would suffice to grant a period of four months from today onwards to vacate the premises. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the revision petitioner/tenant shall vacate the premises within four months from today on condition that he remits the entire arrears of rent due, if any, and continue to remit the rent due in future and file an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking that he shall vacate the premises on or before 16-5-2007. Sd/- K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR JUDGE Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE ks. CRP.2690/2002 -3- K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ ===================== C.R.P.NO.2690/2002-F ORDER 16-1-2007 =====================