IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 RCRev..No. 259 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- RCA.14/2003 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY RCP.44/2001 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ K.V.ADAMKUTTY, S/O.ABUBAKER, AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS, NARATH AMSOM, NARATH DESOM, POST NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ A.P.FARZANA, D/O.ARUVAMBALLY PUTHIYAPURAYIL KUNHAYISSA, AGED 25 YEARS, NARATH AMSOM, NARATH DESOM, P.O.NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RCR. No. 259 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 filed by the tenant is an order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of bona fide own occupation. The case of the landlady was that she needs the building, so that she can conduct a garment shop. The bona fides of the need and the claim were resisted by the revision petitioner contending that the landlady is a Muslim woman who is not expected to go in for business; that the landlady belongs to a very affluent family who does not have to do business for eking out a livelihood; that the petition for eviction has filed out of the displeasure of the landlady to the tenant not acceding to the landlady's request for enhancement of rent. The tenant also claimed RCR. No. 259/09 - 2 - protection of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11. At trial, evidence on the side of the landlady consisted of Exts.A1 to A4 and the landlady's own oral evidence as PW1. On the side of the revision petitioner, the same consisted of Exts.B1 to B5 and his own oral evidence as RW1. The Rent Control Court was very much inspired by the evidence given by AW1 and on analysing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide. It was also found that the tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that he satisfies either of the two ingredients of the second proviso to sub-section (3). Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under sub-section (3) of Section 11. The Appellate Authority considering an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner reappraised the evidence, concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction. 2. Before us, Sri.V.Premchand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of all RCR. No. 259/09 - 3 - the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. The learned counsel submitted that apart from the petition schedule building, there were two other buildings having door Nos. 181 and 184 in the same division of the Kannur Municipal Town. He submitted that it had come out in evidence that building No.181 which stood in the name of the landlady was occupied by a tenant. But he submitted that it was in evidence that room No. 184 remains vacant. Room No.184 stands in the name of the landlady's mother. The learned counsel submitted that judicial precedents like 1984 KHC 166 (Secretary, Thevara Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd. v. Jose) are to the effect that in order that the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11 applies, the vacant building in question should not only be owned by the landlady but also be possessed by the landlady. According to the learned counsel, though the first proviso to sub-section (3) may not apply, the circumstance that the mother of the landlady is having vacant building RCR. No. 259/09 - 4 - with her, is a circumstance which tells upon the bona fides of the need projected. If the need was bona fide the landlady could have very well occupied room No. 184. 3. We are not impressed by this argument. We have gone through the evidence adduced by PW1. It is seen that the only suggestion made to PW1 is that building having door No. 184 also belongs to the landlady. She is not even asked whether there is any impediments in her occupying that building. That building, it was fairly conceded by Mr. Premchand that as per the register maintained by the local authority, stands in the name of the mother. Under the above circumstance we are of the view that there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under section 20 for interfering with the order of Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. 4. The result is that the revision fails and will stand dismissed. However, in deference to the request of the learned counsel that a reasonably long period be given to RCR. No. 259/09 - 5 - the petitioner to vacate the premises we are inclined to direct the execution court to put off delivery till 31-03-2010 subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent landlady on or before 31-03-2010 and undertaking further that arrears of rent if any will be discharged within one month and that occupational charges at the current rent rate will be paid as and when falls due till such time as the revision petitioner surrenders the premises. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of time granted under this order only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-