IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 174 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.114/2002 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.178/1999 of I ADDL.M.C.AND RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS:APPELLANTS 1 TO 3/PETITIONRS 1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------- 1. KADIJA, W/O. LATE PAREETH, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHORRNIKKARA DESOM ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK P.O., THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. 2. JASMINE, D/O. LATE PAREETH, DO. 3. JABIR, S/O. LATE PAREETH, DO. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SRI.RAFFEEKH.K SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN SMT.VIDYA KUMARI.B.VAID SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.DIVYA VISWAM SMT.P.M.JINIMOL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & APPELLANTS 4 & 5/RESPONDENT & ---------------------------- PETITIONERS 4 & 5 1. PRAKASAN, S/O. KANDASAN, ILLIKKATTU HOUSE, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPILLY, KOCHI-24. 2. NEJU, D/O. LATE PAREETH, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOORNIKKARA DESOM, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. 3. BIJU, D/O. LATE PAREETH, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOORNIKKARA DESOM, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES FOR R1 SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN FOR R1 SMT.M.KABANI DINESH FOR R2,3 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ R.C.R. 174 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 4, 2010 ORDER Basheer, J. This revision petition filed under sec.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is at the instance of the landlords of a commercial building. Eviction was sought under secs.11(2)(iii), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. 2. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant had committed default in paying the rent and therefore ordered eviction under sec.11(2)(b) of the Act. However, the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the claim for eviction under sec.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) was not sustainable and accordingly the prayer was rejected by the two authorities concurrently. Hence this revision petition. 3. When this revision petition is taken up for consideration Sri Balagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submits that the tenant is prepared to vacate the premises at the earliest. He only prays for some reasonable time to do so, which according to him, will be three months from today. 4. In view of this subsequent development, we do not deem it RCR 174/2005 2 necessary to consider the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioners/landlords against the concurrent orders passed by the two authorities below. 3. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of directing the respondent/tenant to file an affidavit before this Court undertaking to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlords on or before September 30, 2010. The affidavit shall be filed on or before August 12, 2010. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-