IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 90 of 2009() ----------------------- ( RCA 37/2002 OF DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD RCP.NO.21/2001 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD) PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RCP ---------------------------------------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O. KORAGAPPA, RESIDING AT KUDLU VILLAGE, P.O.RAMDASNAGAR, KASARGODE TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN RCP ------------------------------------------------------ KALLYANI G.SHETTY, D/O. SANJEEVA SHETTY, SUSHIL NIVAS, KUTTYALA IN KUDLU VILLAGE, P.O.RAMDASNAGAR, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.90 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. This revision is filed by the defeated tenant challenging the order of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction under Section 11(3) and 11 (4)(iii) of the Act 2 of 1965 which is confirmed by the appellate authority. 2. The facts in brief are these ; The landlady filed the rent control petition before the Rent Control Court claiming eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11 (4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965, on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide need and that the tenant has acquired possession of another building of his own which is reasonably sufficient for his occupation. The tenant/ revision petitioner resisted the claim contending that the rent is not in arrears, the rate of rent claimed by the landlord is not correct, that the bonafide need set up by the landlady is false and frivolous and that her son for whose need the eviction is sought is not the dependent of the landlady, that he is having his own independent business and that the RCR.No.90/2009 2 tenant is not having any other room in his possession. 3. PW1, the landlady's husband and PW2, her son were examined before the Rent Control Court and Ext.A1 to A20(b) were marked. The tenant was examined as RW1 and he produced Ext.B1 to B4 before the Rent Control Court. 4. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of the evidence allowed the Rent Control Petition on all grounds. In appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the finding of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed findings under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the said judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority. 5. Sri.P.P.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously argued that the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Control erred in holding that the landlady bonafide needs the petition schedule shop room for conducting business of his son and that the tenant has acquired another building of his own. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and having gone through the evidence adduced by both parties RCR.No.90/2009 3 before the Rent Control Court and the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that there is no ground for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. That being so, the revision petition has to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner requests for one year' time for surrendering the building. In the circumstances, we are inclined to grant six month's time to the revision petitioner for surrendering the building on the following conditions : 1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the lower court within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful possession of the building within six months from this date. 2) He shall discharge arrears of rent till the date of surrender before the Rent Control Authority. Both parties shall suffer their respective costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.90/2009 4