IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 296 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.48/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY PALAKKAD RCP.59/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ PAZHANAN,SHARMILA PHOTOSTAT, 18/376,M.C.LODGE,CIVIL STATION ROAD,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. M.B.RAJESH,S/O.LATE BALAN,RESIDING AT MONAMKAVU,PADINJARE YAKKARA.P.O, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. M.B.RAMESH,S/O.LATE BALAN,RESIDING AT MONAMKAVU,PADINJARE YAKKARA.P.O,PALAKKAD-678 001. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) JIBU P.THOMAS. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 296 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.Jibu P.Thomas takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under sub section (3) of Section 11. Sri.C.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would very fairly bring to our notice our own judgment dated 27/9/2010 in RCR No.281/2010. The learned counsel submitted that the above judgment is directed against the very same common judgment which is impugned in this revision. We notice that under the above judgment we have confirmed the impugned common judgment and granted time to the tenant in that case to surrender the premises by 15/4/2011 subject to certain conditions. We are of the view that for the various reasons stated in our judgment in RCR No.281/2010, there is no warrant for invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 RCR.No. 296/2010 2 in this case. For those reasons, this revision petition has to fail. 3. As a last plea, the learned counsel for the revison petitioner requested that in this case the tenant be granted time till 30/4/2011 for surrendering the premises. There is no serious objection to this request from the side of the landlords' counsel. 4. Under the above circumstances, the result of this revision will be as follows; i). RCR is dismissed without any order as to costs. ii). The Execution Court is directed to keep the impugned eviction order in abeyance till 30/4/2011 subject to the following conditions; a). The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the Execution Court undertaking that he would vacate the premises on or before 30/4/2011 without raising any objection. b). The revision petitioner/tenant shall pay of the entire arrears of rent if any and continue to pay occupational charges (damages for use and occupation) for the building at the present contract rate on due dates without default till the building is finally surrendered. RCR.No. 296/2010 3 We make it clear that in the event of failure to file affidavit or comply with the above conditions, the respondents will be at liberty to execute the eviction order forthwith. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk