IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No.403 of 2004 -------------------------- RCA.9/1999 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA RCP.6/1997 of RENT CONTROL COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/TENANTS ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOMATHI AMMAL, PULIMOOTTIL PUTHENPURAYIL KURATTIKKADU MURI, KRATTISSERY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. 2. AMBIKA OF DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 2 & 3/PETITIONERS 2 & 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, AJITHKUMAR KADAMPATTU VEETTIL, KURATTISSERI MURI, KURATTISSERI VILLAGE 2. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, VIJAYAKUMAR OF DO. ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.403 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants is the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. 2. We have heard submissions of Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Sri.T.S.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords. Sri.Pradeep would address us on all the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. He would highlight that during pendency of the RCP, the adjacent room in which the second respondent was conducting medical R. C. R. No.403 of 2004 -2- shop fell vacant and the same was let out for a period of six years to a tenant by name Krishna Kumar. According to him, if the need was bona fide, this would not have been done. This vital aspect of the matter was missed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority and therefore, the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority are illegal, improper and irregular warranting correction under Section 20. 3. Sri.Harikumar would submit that it is not correct to say that during pendency of the RCP, the medical shop building was let out to Krishna Kumar. The truth is that a cinema house which was being conducted by the petitioner fell into debts and for liquidating those heavy debts, the landlord became R. C. R. No.403 of 2004 -3- compelled to dispose of the medical store with the entire stock in trade, to Krishna Kumar. This is the evidence adduced by PW1 as well as PW3. There is no effective challenge against the above part of the evidence adduced by PW1 and PW3. 4. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the evidence of PW1 and PW3 to the extent necessary for appreciating the arguments raised before us in the context of vacancy of the medical store building. We are of the view that the landlord had a good reason for disposing of the medical store building and the disposal of the medical store building and the induction of Krishna Kumar into the same cannot be a circumstance militating against the bona fides of the R. C. R. No.403 of 2004 -4- need projected. After all, in this jurisdiction under Section 20, this Court is not ordinarily expected to re- appreciate the evidence and substitute this Court's conclusions for the conclusions of fact entered into by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority especially when they are concurrent. Having regard to the well defined contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we are of the view that there is no warrant at all for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. At the same time, we feel that there is justification for granting slightly longer than normal period to the revision petitioner for vacating the premises. Hence, even as we confirm the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the RCR, there will be a R. C. R. No.403 of 2004 -5- direction to the execution court not to order or effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondents till 30/04/2010 subject to the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioners file an affidavit before the execution court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondents/landlords on or before 30/04/2010. Through this affidavit it shall also be undertaken by them that they will discharge the arrears of rent, if any, and will pay occupational charges at the current rent rates promptly and regularly till they surrender the premises. Once such an affidavit is noticed, the E.P will be adjourned to 01/05/2010. If affidavit is not filed, the revision petitioners will not get the benefit of R. C. R. No.403 of 2004 -6- time granted. 5. The RCR is dismissed subject to the above conditions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-