IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 RCRev..No. 244 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.10/2006 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, N. PARAVUR RCP.14/2004 of THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN RCA/RESPONDENT IN RCP: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- C.A.JAMAL, S/O.ABDUL KADER, CHERUKARETH HOUSE, KARUKAPPILLY LANE, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN-26. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP: -------------------------------------------------------------- JORDY TARIYAN, S/O.U.J.TARIYAN, HIGH RANGE BUNGALOW, URUMPATH HOUSE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ALUVA. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- R.C.R.NO.244 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R Raman,J. Revision Petitioner is the tenant, who faced with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The need put forward by the landlord is to conduct a Readymade Garment business. The need as put forward by the landlord was found to be bona fide. Though the tenant claimed the benefit of the proviso, the court below found that the benefit of the proviso is not substantiated by adducing satisfactory evidence. The burden being on the tenant to prove the same and on failure to do so, the court below rejected the contention and ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority after re-appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the view as expressed by the Rent Control Court. In such -2- R.C.R.No.244/2008 circumstances, the tenant has preferred this revision petition. 2. The learned counsel Sri R. Ramadas appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner after arguing for sometime and on finding that this Court is not likely to accept his contentions as raised sought to withdraw the same. However he pleaded for larger time to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises. Accordingly, we dismiss this revision petition. However, the tenant is given six months' time to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises on the following conditions: 1) The petitioner herein shall give an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the execution court within a period of one month from today that he will surrender vacant possession of the premises on or before 3-4-2009 and also remit the entire arrears of rent if any, within the aforesaid period. 2) He shall continue to pay the amount equivalent to the rent for use and occupation, until the vacant possession is surrendered. 3) He shall not induct any third parties to the tenanted -3- R.C.R.No.244/2008 premises. 4) In case of failure to comply with any of the above conditions, the order of eviction passed by the court below will become enforceable forthwith. Otherwise it will stand deferred for a period of six months. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv. -4- R.C.R.No.244/2008