IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 119 of 2011() ------------------------------------ RCA.35/2007 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.109/2004 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PAPPACHAN, S/O.PAULOSE, RESIDING AT PADATH HOUSE, MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT (DIED ON 23-07-2009) 2. CHINNAMANI, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O.LATE PAPPACHAN, RESIDING AT PADATH HOUSE, MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. MOHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAPPACHAN, RESIDING AT PADATH HOUSE, MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 4. LOVLY, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.PAPPACHAN, RESIDING AT MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 5. MERLY, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.PAPPACHAN, S/O.PADATH PAULOSE, MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 6. LATHA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.PAPPACHAN, S/O.PADATH PAULOSE, MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. RCRev..No. 119 of 2011 7. MEERA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE PAPPACHAN, RESIDING AT PADATH HOUSE, MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 8. REENA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE PAPPACHAN, RESIDING AT PADATH HOUSE, MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SARAMMA, AGED 68 YEARS, PATTAMBI ROAD, RESIDING AT KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 306. 2. VINU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAPPACHAN, RESIDING AT PADATH HOUSE, MANAKULAM ROAD, VAISSERY WEST, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 306. R1 BY ADV. SRI. SREEKUMAR .G (CHELUR). THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= R.C.R. No. 119 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Barkath Ali, J. Challenge in this Rent Control Revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 by the legal representatives of deceased tenant is to the order of the Rent Control Court dated March 1, 2007 ordering eviction under section 11(3) of the Act which was confirmed by the Appellate Court by judgment dated October 22, 2010. 2. The first respondent - landlady filed R.C.P.No.109 of 2004 before the Munsiff, Rent Control Court, Chavakkad claiming eviction under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”) on the ground that her son Gregory bona fide requires the petition schedule building to start a furniture business, that she has no other building of her own and that the original tenant is not depending for his livelihood on the RCR 119/2011 2 income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. 3. The deceased first revision petitioner (original tenant) resisted the claim before the Rent Control Court on the ground that the bona fide need claimed by the landlady was not genuine, that the petition schedule building was not suitable for conducting a furniture business, that he was depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and that no other suitable building was available in the locality to shift his business. 4. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlady was examined as PW1, her son was examined as PW2 and another witness was examined as PW3 and Exts.A1 and A3 were marked on her side. The original tenant was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on his side. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of the evidence found that the landlady bona fide needs the petition schedule building for her son to conduct furniture business, RCR 119/2011 3 that the landlady has no other suitable building for her own occupation in that locality and that the tenant was not entitled to the benefits of first and second provisos to sub section (3) of section 11 of the Act and ordered eviction under sub section (3) of section 11 of the Act. The appellate authority confirmed the said finding. During the pendency of the appeal, the original tenant died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 8 and additional second respondent in the appeal. Appellants 2 to 8 have come up in revision challenging the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the lower appellate authority. 5. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants and the caveator/1st respondent landlady. 6. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the landlady and the original tenant before the Rent Control Court, the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no illegality, RCR 119/2011 4 irregularity or impropriety in the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the appellate authority to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of the Act. That being so, the revision petition has to be dismissed. 7. Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam, counsel for the revision petitioners requested for one year's time to surrender the petition schedule building, as the revision petitioners are doing business there, which is opposed by the counsel for the landlady, caveator. Taking into consideration the fact that the revision petitioners are conducting the business in the petition schedule building, we feel that time up to December 30, 2011 can be granted to them to surrender possession of the building on the following conditions :- 1) The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit before the execution court agreeing to surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building to the landlady/1st respondent on or before 30-12-2011 within RCR 119/2011 5 two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2) The revision petitioners shall pay arrears of rent up to date if any to the landlady/1st respondent within one month from this date and future rent as and when the same falls due till the date of surrender, failing which, the tenant will not be entitled to the benefit of the time granted by this order. 8. The Revision Petition is dismissed with the above directions. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn