IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 199 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.46/2003 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA RCP.33/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.PUTHIYAVEETIL PARIKUTTY, CHENTHRAPPINNI VILLAGE, PERUMPADAPPU DESOM,KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- HASSANALI HAJI, S/O.MOOLAMKANNAMPARAMBIL KUNJUMOIDEEN, CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE,PERUMPADAPPU CHAMAKALA DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.199 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R --------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against him by the statutory authorities under the Rent Control Act on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation. The need projected by the landlord was that the site of the petition schedule building where the tenant is presently conducting vegetable business is required for providing a direct access to the landlord's adjacent premises where the landlord is conducting sawmill business. The landlord had actually invoked grounds of re-construction under Section 11(4)(iv) and additional accommodation under Section 11(8) also. Statutory authorities, however, rightly found that in the fact situation obtaining in the case the only apposite ground RCR.199/2010 2 available to the landlord for evicting the tenant is the ground under Section 11(3). The bonafides of the need was disputed. It was contended by the tenant that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub- section 3. 2. Evidence at trial before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A7, B1, C1, C1(a) and oral testimonies of PW1, CPW1 and CPW2. On appreciating the evidence the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need was bonafide. It was also concluded by that court that tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies the ingredients of the proviso. Accordingly order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3). The Appellate Authority considering an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner re-appraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusion of the Rent Control Court and confirmed order of eviction. 3. In this revision filed under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the RCR.199/2010 3 Appellate Authority. Sri.G. Sreekumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous arguments before us based on all those grounds raised in the RCR. According to him, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties and hence requires to be vacated. 4. All the submissions of Mr.Sreekumar were resisted by Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.Krishnakumar would support the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority on the various reasons stated therein. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of our present jurisdiction. Having scanned the impugned judgment, we find that the factual findings entered therein are founded on evidence and are reasonable findings. We do not find RCR.199/2010 4 reason for interfering with them in the present jurisdiction. That being so, there is no warrant for interference under Section 20. 6. As a last plea, Mr.Sreekumar requested that reasonable time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises as it will be difficult for him to identify another place for re-locating his vegetable business. Even though Sri.Krishnakumar opposed granting of a long period of time, we feel that in this case there is justification for granting time upto 31.3.2011 subject to conditions. Result of the above discussion is as follows: RCR is dismissed. Judgment of the Appellate Authority is confirmed. Execution court is directed not to order delivery of the building in question to the respondent till 1.4.2011 provided the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court as RCR.199/2010 5 the case may be within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises to the respondent on or before 31.3.2011. (2) He shall also undertake through the same affidavit that he will discharge arrears of rent if any due by 31.8.2010 and that he will pay occupational charges to the landlord with effect from 1.9.2010 at the rate of Rs.150/- per mensem till they give actual surrender. We make it clear that unless the affidavit as directed above is filed on time the revision petitioner will not get the benefit of time granted by this order. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb