IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 RCRev..No. 221 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.86/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.229/2004 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT : -------------------- CHERUI AMMA, D/O. LATE ANTONY, AGED 67 YEARS, NO. OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT ROOM NO. 107A, BURNASSERI, KANNUR-13. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. PADIKKAL SAFARULLA, S/O. KOYA KUNHI, AGED 56 YEARS, M.E.S. CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT AMBIKA ROAD, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR-4. 2. MARY FERNANDEZ, W/O. LATE PATRIC FERNANDEZ, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NO. OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT ROOM NO. 62 E, NEAR KAPPUCHIN ASHRAM, BURNASSERY, KANNUR-13, KANNUR DIST. ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.221 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition filed by the alleged sub tenant are the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently on the grounds of arrears of rent and sub letting. As for the ground of arrears of rent, we notice that there is no serious defence to that ground and the court below rightly passed order of eviction on that ground. We do not find any warrant for interfering with the order of eviction passed under the ground of arrears of rent. 2. The defence to the ground of sub letting was that the original tenant Sri.Patric Fernandez, husband of the admitted tenant- the first respondent in the RCP and the father of the revision petitioner Sri.Antony Fernandez were direct brothers. A few years ago, the then landlord filed an RCP alleging that Sri.Patric Fernandez had sub let the premises to his brother Sri.Antony Fernandez. That RCP was dismissed as withdrawn. RCR.No.221/2009 2 Even after the dismissal of that RCP, Sri.Antony Fernandez continued to be in possession. The continuance of Sri.Antony Fernandez in possession of the building was acquiesced at by the then landlord from whom the building was purchased only recently by the respondent. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority did not become inclined to accept the above defence for want of proper pleadings and evidence. 3. Having gone through the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the finding entered by that Authority that the revision Petitioner was unsuccessful in establishing that the original transfer by Sri.Patric Fernandez in favour of Sri.Antony Fernandez was acquiesced at by the then landlord by evidence. Significantly, Smt.Mary Fernandez, the first respondent in the RCP and the wife of Patric Fernandez, does not reside in the subject building at all. She is residing elsewhere at the time of filing of the RCP. The only person in physical possession of the building is the revision petitioner herself. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no warrant for invoking the revisional jurisdiction for interfering with the finding concurrently entered by the Rent Control Court and the RCR.No.221/2009 3 Appellate Authority that the possession by the revision petitioner of the building is not as authorised by the landlord. The revision petition necessarily has to fail and we dismiss the same. 4. In response to the last plea of Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that a reasonably long period of time be given to the petitioner to surrender the premises, we feel(despite the stiff opposition of Sri.V.Premchand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord) that there is justification on the facts of this case in granting time till 30/6/2010. It is noticed that pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, a sum of Rs.3,500/- has already been paid. This amount will certainly cover the arrears of rent due as on date. We are inclined to grant time only on a further condition that the revision petitioner pays a further amount of Rs.1500/- to the respondent either directly or through his counsel in this court within one month from today. The revision petitioner will also be bound to file an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful possession of the building in question to the respondent on or before 30/6/2010. Once affidavit is filed as directed above and payment is made as RCR.No.221/2009 4 above, the revision petitioner will be entitled for the grant of time to surrender till 30/6/2010. Affidavit as directed above will be filed on or before 30th instant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk