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 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 RCRev..No. 67 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.42/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.11/2004 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ ABDUL HAFEEZ,AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MILK WHITE DRY CLEENERS, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TOWN, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS --------------- 1. UMMER ANSAN AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, JASEEM MANZIL CHAKKANTHARA PALAKKAD TOWN, PALAKKAD. 2. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 49 S/O.UMMER, JASEEM MANZIL CHAKKANTHARA PALAKKAD TOWN, PALAKKAD. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.67 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009 ORDER C.K.Abdul Rehim, J. The respondent/tenant in R.C.P. No.11/2004 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Palakkad is the revision petitioner herein. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, on the grounds that the landlords need the tenanted premises for own occupation and that the tenant has acquired possession of other rooms suitable for conducting his business. The Rent Control Court declined eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) and the landlords have not challenged the same. But it is found that the need projected for own occupation is genuine and ordered eviction under Section 11(3). The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. The present revision is filed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. We heard Smt.K.Girija, learned counsel appearing for RCR .No.67/2009 2 the revision petitioner at length. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the courts below have failed in properly appreciating the evidence on record with respect to availability of another suitable building in ownership and possession of the landlords. The contention is based on Ext.C2 commission report, in which there is description about boundaries of the petition schedule building. The northern boundary is described as property in possession of the landlords along with shed. In the appeal, the revision petitioner/tenant filed an interim application seeking to take note of the above aspect in Ext.C2 commission report, in order to arrive at a conclusion that the landlords are in ownership and possession of other building which is suitable to start the business intended. The respondents/landlords filed objection to the above interim application stating that the building mentioned in Ext.C2 is only a shed and not a shop building and that it is in occupation of another tenant. Even though the revision petitioner filed a rejoinder refuting those contentions, no evidence either documentary or oral was adduced, even before the Appellate Court to establish that there is a building available in the RCR .No.67/2009 3 ownership and vacant possession of the landlord suitable for starting the avowed business. The tenant has not even attempted to bring amendments to the pleadings for a strong urge of the contention. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion that the landlords are in vacant possession of any other building, based on Ext.C2 commission report. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings on fact arrived by the courts below in this regard. Hence we are not in a position to upset the conclusions on the genuineness of the need projected. 3. Yet another contention raised by the revision petitioner is regarding the second proviso to Section 11(3). The Rent Control Court found that the tenant has no other business or income and the income derived from the schedule premises is the sole means of livelihood. There is no challenge against the said finding. But with respect to the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3), it is found that no serious enquiries made by the tenant with respect to availability of suitable other buildings in the locality for shifting his business run in the schedule building. While examining as RW 1 before the Rent RCR .No.67/2009 4 Control Court, the revision petitioner/tenant admitted that he has not made any enquiry with respect to availability of rooms in a commercial building viz. Centurary Plaza, which according to the landlord is situated about 200 Metres away from the schedule building. The tenant further admitted that he is not aware as to whether any vacant buildings are available beyond 50 Metres on the surroundings of schedule building. We do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact finding authorities that the tenant had failed to establish that he made any serious enquiries in the locality with respect to availability of vacant buildings. The tenant also has not adduced any independent evidence by examination of the Accommodation Controller or owners of any other building in the locality. There is no earnest attempt made by the revision petitioner tenant in this regard. 4. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any illegality, impropriety or infirmity with the concurrent findings of the courts below in ordering eviction under Section Section 11 (3). There is no merit in the revision petition warranting interference of this court. RCR .No.67/2009 5 5. Smt.K.Girija, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner lastly appealed for our indulgence for granting one year period for vacating the tenanted premises. Eventhough we are not inclined to grant period of one year, we feel that in the circumstances of the case, the period of about six months can be granted to the revision petitioner for vacating the tenanted premises. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions; If the revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the petition schedule building on or before 30th September 2009 and if he pays arrears of rent if any due and continues to pay the rent falling due till the period up to 30/9/2009, the Execution Court is directed to defer eviction of the petitioner from the schedule building till 30/9/2009. Affidavit as stated above RCR .No.67/2009 6 shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk