IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 173 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.16/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM RCOP.1/2005 of PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN RCA/COUNTER PETITIONER IN RCOP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A.S.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT KANIANMALAKUNNEL, CHANNANIKKAD P.O., PANACHIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCOP --------------------------------------------------- C.M.NARAYANA KURUP, RESIDING AT CHEDIYATTU HOUSE, CHANNANIKKAD P.O., PANACHIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. SRI.M.P.MADHAVAN KUTTY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.173 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 7thday of September, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision and we have heard the submissions of Sri. A .Geoge Jacob, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. M.P.Madhavan Kutty, learned counsel for the respondent. Even though Sri.George Jacob has addressed us very strenuously and persuasively on the various grounds raised in this memorandum of revision assailing order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner, we are not persuaded to hold that the order of the Rent Control Court, which was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, is vitiated to the extent of warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety justifying interference in revision. 2. As his last submission, Sri.George Jacob requested that atleast one year's time be given to the revision petitioner, who is a barber, for surrendering the premises. This request is very stiffly opposed by Sri.Madhavan Kutty. However, having regard RCR .No.173/2009 2 to the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that there is justification for granting time to the revision petitioner till 30/6/2010 for surrendering the premises subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the RCR is decided in the following terms; 1). We dismiss the RCR confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. 2). The Execution Court is directed not to order or effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent landlord subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent landlord on or before 30/6/2010 and undertaking further to discharge the entire arrears of rent, which is due in respect of the petition schedule RCR .No.173/2009 3 building, within one month and also to pay occupational charges at the current rate rates till actual surrender of the building is given to the respondent. ii). Affidavit as directed above shall be filed within three weeks from today. The revision petitioner will become eligible for the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk