IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 294 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.95/2007 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM RCP.117/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- ANITA ROSH PETER, AGED 28,D/O.T.V.PETER, 78-SUBHASH NAGAR, EDAPPALLY KOCHI-682024. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ P.GEORGE JACOB, AGED 63,S/O.P.C.GEORGE, PUTHUKERIL HOUSE, ANGADICAL SOUTH, CHENGANNUR – 689122. BY ADV. SMT..R.RANJINI THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 3540/2009 IN R.C.R. NO. 294/2009 DISMISSED 9/12/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 294 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is an order of eviction passed concurrently on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The building in question is a residential building and the case of the landlord was that he, who was previously employed in Dubai, has come back for good and is presently put up along with his parents at Chengannur. He genuinely needs to occupy the petition schedule building, the only building belonging to him, so that he can set up residence with family. Even though the bona fides of the need and the claim were disputed by the revision petitioner, the Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence which consisted of Exts.A1 and A2 and the oral evidence of the landlord as PW1 and that the tenant as RW1, came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord was bona fide and accordingly passed order of eviction. The Appellate Authority RCR.No.294/2009 2 reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. 2. In this revision filed under Section 20, the tenant has raised several grounds challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. Sri. G.Jayasankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us extensively on the various grounds raised therein. As his last plea, the learned counsel requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. 3. Smt.R.Ranjini, learned counsel for the respondent very stiffly opposed the request for grant of time. According to her, the building was let out to the revision petitioner for a specific period of six months with the understanding that the revision petitioner will put up her own residential building on the adjacent plot which belongs to her. She submitted that the respondent's wife has also come for good from Dubai and the family at present has no place of their own to live. She submitted that believing the words of the revision petitioner the household articles of the respondent/landlord have already been unloaded in the petition RCR.No.294/2009 3 schedule premises and unless they are able to occupy the building immediately, they will be put to considerable hardship. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is a revisional and this court is not expected ordinarily to substitute the factual conclusions entered by the facts finding authorities under the Rent Control Act viz. the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority especially when those conclusions are founded on evidence. 5. Having scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the finding that the respondent bona fide needs to occupy the petition schedule building is founded on the evidence of PW1, which inspired the Rent Control very much. The circumstances brought out in evidence, in our view, also will justify the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. That being so, there is no infirmity, illegality or impropriety warranting correction of the impugned order and judgment. We would have been inclined to grant at least six months time to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises subject to RCR.No.294/2009 4 certain conditions. But, the facts submitted before us by Smt.Ranjini on behalf of the landlord have some appeal and hence we are inclined to grant time till 31/5/2010 only. Accordingly, this revision petition is decided in the following terms. i). RCR stands dismissed. ii). The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule premises till 31/5/2010 subject to the following conditions; The Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises to the respondent/landlord on or before 31/5/2010. It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that the arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and the occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid promptly and RCR.No.294/2009 5 regularly till such time as surrender is made. The Revision Petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk