IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 RCRev..No. 86 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.24/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT/ADDL.R.C.A.A. (SPL), KOTTAYAM RCOP.17/2001 of PRL.M.C/R.C.C., KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/CR.PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------- 1. P.V.THOMAS, S/O.LATE P.I.VARGHESE POOTHARA HOUSE, AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. GRACE THOMAS, W/O.P.V.THOMAS POOTHARA HOUSE, AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) SRI.P.GOPAL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.G.SATHYAN, S/O.K.K.GOPALAN KONDATTU HOUSE, KOZHICHANDA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCR 86/2008 ORDER ON I.A.NO.829/2008 DISMISSED. 31.3.2008. SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.C.R. NO. 86 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 31st March, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondent is the landlord. Eviction was sought under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), by the landlord. The Rent Controller allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the same. This revision is filed, challenging the order of the appellate authority and that of the Rent Controller. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners pointed out that the respondent has no capacity to start the proposed business. He highlighted the conflicting versions regarding the financial capacity deposed by Pws. 1 and 2. But those findings being in the realm of finding of facts, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner finally prayed that the revision petitioners may be given one year's time to vacate the tenanted premises. They have to RCR 86/2008 2 collect about Rs.40 lakhs, which is in the hands of their customers. Unless sufficient time is given to vacate, they will be put to irreparable injury and hardship. It is also pointed out that they have to pay Rs.42 lakhs to their suppliers. So, at least, one year's time may be granted, it is prayed. On this point we heard the learned counsel appearing for the landlord. He opposed the prayer. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the revision petitioners are given time up to 31.12.2008, on condition they file an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit withdrawing their contentions and also agreeing to vacate the tenanted premises on or before 31.12.2008. The affidavit in this regard shall be filed within three weeks from today before the execution court. The arrears of rent, if any, remaining unpaid, shall be cleared within one month from today. The rent due from time to time shall also be paid, till the premises are vacated. The revision petitioners shall also undertake that they will not induct any sub tenant in the tenanted premises. Subject to the above direction, the R.C.R is dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioners may be given liberty to negotiate with the landlord for further time. This judgment cannot affect their rights in this regard. RCR 86/2008 3 Therefore, we need not give them any liberty for the said purpose. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/