IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 204 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.24/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.6/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/TENANT -------------------------------------------------------- SURESH V, S/O.AMBUJAKSHI AMMA, POOJA METALS, NEAR BUS STAND, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DIST.RESDING AT, KAZHANITHODI HOUSE, POOTHAKODE, MAJALUR DESOM PO, ALATHUR TALUK PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/LANDLORD, ----------------------------------- A.K.YUSUF, S/O.LATE KUNJU MUHAMMED HAJI, ALATHUR ANGADIYIL, COURT ROAD, KATTUSERRY AMSOM AND DESOM ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.204 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 ORDER K.Surendra Mohan, J. This is a revision filed by the tenant against the concurrent findings of the Authorities below ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Petition alleging that he needed vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room for the occupation of his son, a diploma holder in Radio and Television Mechanism. His son wanted to start a shop for the repairs of such articles in the schedule shop room. 2. The need of the landlord was resisted by the tenant pointing out that the same was not a bona fide need. According to the tenant, the landlord had other shop rooms in his possession, which could be utilised for satisfying the need of his son, if at all any such need was in existence. According to the tenant, the income from the business conducted in the schedule premises was the only source of livelihood for himself and his RCR.No.204/2009 2 family. It was also contended that there were no other suitable rooms available in the locality for shifting his business. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the Rent Control Petition. 3. The Rent Control Court tried the petition on the above pleadings. Pws 1 & 2, and RW1 were examined as witnesses and Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.C1 documents were marked. On an elaborate consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the landlord's need was bona fide and, therefore, the court ordered eviction. 4. The findings of the Rent Control Court were challenged by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad in RCA No.24/2007. On a reappraisal of the evidence on record as well as the contentions of the parties, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has also confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. The said findings are under challenge in the above Revision. 5. We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.Sajan Varghese. We have also perused the records of the RCR.No.204/2009 3 case and anxiously considered the contentions advanced. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not been able to point out any evidence or material to show that the concurrent findings of the authorities below are vitiated by any illegality, impropriety or irregularity. We, therefore, confirm the concurrent findings entered by the Authorities below. 7. As his last submission, the counsel for the revision petitioner made an appeal for the grant of some time to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the tenant could be granted time up to 30/4/2010 to vacate the tenanted premises subject to the following conditions; i). The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within a period of three weeks from today unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord on or before 30/4/2010. RCR.No.204/2009 4 ii). The tenant shall pay all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises and shall continue to pay the rent in respect of the premises regularly till he surrenders vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. Iii). In the event of default of any of the above conditions, the landlord shall be free to execute the order of eviction passed in this case. Subject to the above conditions, the Rent Control Revision is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk