IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No.129 of 2009 --------------------------- RCA.119/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.19/1998 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------- KOTTAPPARATH AHAMMED, S/O. ANDRU, BUSINESSMAN, RES. IN PATIKALEKANDY HOUSE, PANOOR AMSOM CHAMAD DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) SMT.ASHA CHACKO RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- K.P. SEENATH, W/O. SULAIMAN, NO. OCCUPATION, RESIDING IN KEEZHUR AMSOM, AND DESOM, THALASSERY. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant is the revision petitioner and he challenges in this revision under Section 20, the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of bona fide own occupation under Section 11 (3) and the ground that the tenant has put up another building of his own reasonably sufficient for his requirement under clause 3 Sub Section 4 of Section 11. 2. Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed us extensively and very persuasively. He submitted that it has come out in R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -2- evidence that the building on the basis of which eviction was sought for under clause 3 of sub Section 4 of Section 11 is not presently under the occupation of the tenant. It is under the occupation of the tenant's tenant. As for the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11, he submitted that the need projected is the need of the respondent/landlady's husband to start business. But it was not proved that the respondent/landlady's husband is dependent on the respondent/landlady. 3. We have anxiously considered the submissions of Sri.P.C.Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have carefully gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is seen that the R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -3- findings entered into by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iii), are based on evidence. It is not financial dependency which is necessary for the purpose of ground under clause 3 Section 11. It has become evident that the husband of landlady does not have any other building of his own in possession. Thus, it stands proved that the landlady's husband is dependent on the landlady for the purpose of a building for commencing business. Putting up of a building or coming into possession of a building or having possession of a building already - are sufficient to constitute an eviction ground under Section 11(4)(iii). If the tenant is not in possession of the building pointed out by the landlady for getting R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -4- order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii), that is only because of the said building was let out by the tenant to his tenant. Under these circumstances, the argument that presently the said building is possessed not by the tenant but by the tenant's tenant will not improve matters for the revision petitioner/tenant. 4. Having regard to the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any warrant for interference on the eviction passed under either of the grounds. 5. As his last submission, Sri.P.C.Chacko requested that at least one year's time be granted for peacefully surrendering the premises. We are not inclined to grant so much of time. However, we feel that in the circumstances of the case and by way of R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -5- indulgence that time can be granted till 31st December, 2009. The result of this RCR therefore, is as follows:- 1) The RCR is dismissed. 2) However, the execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/12/09 on condition that the revision petitioner files an affidavit within three weeks from today either before the execution court or before the Rent Control Court stating that he will unconditionally and peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlady on or before 31st of December, 2009 and that he will discharge the arrears of rent, if any, within one month and will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rates till R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -6- the date of actual surrender as and when the same falls due. If the revision petitioner does not file affidavit within the time limit mentioned above he will not be entitled for the benefit of time granted by this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-