IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 /2ND JYAISHTA 1930 RCRev..No. 135 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.103/2007 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,(RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY), ERNAKULAM RCP.31/2006 of III ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT (RENT CONTROL COURT), ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------- ANAND PAWAR ,S/O. MARUTI PAWAR, NAVODHAYA JEWELERS, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ----------- 1. T.V.NARAYANAN, S/O. LATE VATTU, AGED 57 YEARS,HOUSE NO. 40/8919, MEENAKSHI ESTATE RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM ,KOCHI-35 2. T.N.SURESH, S/O.NARAYANAN HOUSE NO. 40/8919, MEENAKSHI ESTATE RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM ,KOCHI-35 3. T.N.SUJIT, S/O.NARAYANAN HOUSE NO. 40/8919, MEENAKSHI ESTATE RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM ,KOCHI-35 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- R.C.R.NO.135 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Raman,J. This is a revision petition at the instance of the tenant, who is faced with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed in appeal. Landlords have sought for eviction on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Kerala (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It was the specific contention of the landlords that the petition schedule building belonging to them was leased out to the revision petitioner herein. The lst petitioner is running a cool drink shop on the side of the staircase of the said building. The 2nd petitioner is running a medical shop in a rented building at Kakkanad by paying an amount of Rs.1500/- by way of rent. The 3rd petitioner is a pharmacist, who is now having no job, who is unmarried. The 3rd petitioner therefore depending on the other petitioners wants to start a medical shop in the petition schedule building. The 2nd petitioner gave evidence as PW-1 in support of the petition. It was deposed by PW-1 that at the time of letting out the -2- R.C.R..No.135/2008 building an amount of Rs.30,000/- was received as security deposit which will be returned at the time of surrendering vacant possession of the building. The pharmacy registration certificate issued in the name of the 3rd petitioner is produced as Ext.A3. The respondent opposed the eviction petition inter alia contending that the petition is bereft of bona fides and is only a ruse for evicting him and to let out the building at a higher rent. According to him, the medical shop at Kakkanad is run by the 2nd petitioner, where the 3rd petitioner is assisting him and therefore, there is no need to start a separate medical shop and that the medical shop itself is in the name of the 3rd petitioner as the licence is issued to the 3rd petitioner as a pharmacist. But the 3rd petitioner who was examined as PW-2 stated that he is unemployed and he wanted to start a medical store, for which he is depending on the other petitioners for getting the petition schedule building and that there is no other building in the possession of the petitioners in the city or town for starting the business. It may be true that he was working in his brother's medical shop at Kakkanad, that is only to get experience in the field and as such he desired to start an independent medical shop, which is supported by the other petitioners. He stated that he is a pharmacist and he has got requisite experience in conducting a medical shop by assisting his brother at Kakkanad. The -3- R.C.R..No.135/2008 respondent was examined as RW-1. According to him, the present eviction petition is only a ruse for getting better rent. 2. The court below, after analysing the evidence in the matter both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the bona fide need put forth by the landlords is true and probable and hence ordered eviction. It also found that the petitioner herein is not entitled to the benefit under the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed. The Appellate Authority re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the order of the Rent Control Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed, against which the present appeal is filed. 3. We have gone through the records of the case and heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. The conclusion reached by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is based on an appreciation of the evidence on record and that the bona fide need as put forth by the 3rd petitioner, who is depending on the other petitioners for the building that he is a pharmacist and he has got sufficient experience in conducting medical shop by helping his brother and that he has no other business of his own and necessarily he desired to have a separate income by starting a medical shop, cannot be said to be bereft of any bona fides. This aspect of the -4- R.C.R..No.135/2008 matter has been appreciated by both the courts below in which no interference is called for, as those findings are based on facts and evidence in this case. The court below also rightly found that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. We find no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. 4. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be given reasonable time for vacating the premises. We have considered this request, since in the tenanted premises the appellant is conducting a jewellery since 1989, and considering the fact that it is a running business, we feel that the petitioner should be given reasonable time for vacating the premises. Accordingly, the order of eviction will stand deferred for a period of six months on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to vacate the premises on or before the expiry of six months' period from today, within a period of three weeks from today. (2) He shall deposit the entire arrears of rent if any, within three weeks from today. (3) He shall continue to pay/deposit the arrears of rent till he actually surrenders the building. -5- R.C.R..No.135/2008 (4) If any of the conditions as above is defaulted, it will be open to the landlord to execute the order of eviction forthwith. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.