IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 61 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.12/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , PARAVUR RCP.16/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ N.V.PETER, S/O VARGHEESE, NARAKKACHALIL HOUSE, AISWARYA LANE, THOTTAKKATTU KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- SINI SEBASTIAN, W/O SEBASTIAN THONMAS, KARUTHARA HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTU KARA, P.O. ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.683006 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 61 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The petition schedule building originally belonged to the father of the petitioner. After his demise, the right over the petition schedule building devolved upon his three children. The other co-owners have consented and authorised the respondent to file this rent control petition as evidenced by Exts.A5 and A6. 2. The need alleged by the landlady is for her own residential accommodation. The need was resisted by the tenant contending that it is only a ruse for eviction. On evaluating the evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide. Evidence was adduced by the respondent to show that her husband had sold away his property including the building thereon. Ext.A13 shows that PW1 is RCR.No.61/2011 2 staying in a rented building. On a reappraisal of the evidence, the learned Appellate Authority also concurred with the view taken by the Rent Controller that the need projected is bona fide. 3. Sitting in revision, this court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence to take a different conclusion. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of eviction passed by the courts below. Hence the revision is dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the tenant may be granted 10 months time to vacate the tenanted premises. Considering all the aspects, the tenant is granted 8 months time to vacate the petition schedule building on the following condition; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking that he will surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building within 8 months from today and undertaking further through the same affidavit RCR.No.61/2011 3 that arrears of rent if any due as on date will be paid within one month from today and occupation charges at the current rent rate will be paid as and when the same falls due. We clarify that the tenant will get benefit of time granted as above, only if affidavit as directed above is filed and the undertakings therein are honoured. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk