IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 RCRev..No. 296 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.15/2005 of DISTRICT COURT (RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (PRL.DISTRICT COURT), THALASSERY RCP.137/2003 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT (RENT CONTROLLER),KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ PAZHAYIDATHU KUNHIRAMAN, ROOM NO.CW-35/384-385, KANNUR MUNCIPALITY, NEAR THALIKAVU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- MALIKKANTAKATH ASSAINAR HAJI, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, KOOVERI AMSOM, CHAPPARAPADAVU DESOM. ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== R.C.R. NO. 296 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose,J. A tenant, who has suffered orders of eviction concurrently on the ground mentioned under Sections 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965(Act 2 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the hands of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, is the petitioner in this revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Act. The respondent/landlord submits that the building which consists of two rooms is needed bona fide for occupation by his Gulf returnee son so that he can start hotel business therein. The defence of the revision petitioner was that the claim is not bona fide. The revision petitioner also claimed the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. RCR.296/2008. -2- 2. Before us, Sri.K.Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would assail the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel submitted that the case that petition schedule building, which has very small rooms and that too in a dilapidated condition is required by the son of the respondent, who is a Gulf returnee, can start a hotel business implicitly lacks in bona fides. The learned counsel would show us the recently taken photographs of the rooms and submit that in view of the ground realities of everyday life, it is improbable that a Gulf returnee will think in terms of starting a hotel business in the petition schedule rooms in their present condition. 3. Sri.V.Premchand, Advocate has lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent/landlord and accordingly we heard him also. Mr.Premchand submitted that the petition schedule rooms are the only rooms, which could be provided by the respondent/landlord to his son who had returned from Gulf and is presently without any employment or avocation for life. The landlord has no other choice. He conceded that the present condition of the building may not enable the son,PW2 who had RCR.296/2008. -3- been examined, to commence hotel business straight away. He submitted that once possession of the building is got back, necessary alterations and maintenance works will be done to the building and the proposed business will certainly be commenced. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and we have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. We find that the findings concurrently entered by the courts below that the building is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation of his son, who is dependent on him are based on evidence including the admissions made by the revision petitioner during examination is a correct one. Even otherwise, the need projected by a father that his Gulf returnee son who is admittedly without any employment or avocation is to be accommodated in his building for the purpose of starting business, in our opinion, is a need which can be initially presumed to be a bona fide one. It is for the tenant to show by highlighting oblique motive or such other circumstance and substantiate through cogent evidence that the need is not bona fide. 5. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, we do not find any warrant for interference with the RCR.296/2008. -4- findings of the courts below that the need is a bona fide one. The tenant's claim for protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is also found concurrently against the tenant and we do not find any reasons to interfere with those findings also. As a last submission, Mr.Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought for one year's time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. This request was stiffly opposed by Mr.Premchand. Having considered the above request and having regard to the circumstances attending in the case, we feel that there is a justification for grant of six month's time to vacate the premises on certain conditions. Accordingly, even as we are dismissing the revision petition, there will be a direction to the Execution Court to put off execution proceedings by six months subject to the following conditions: 1) The petitioner shall discharge arrears of rent, if any, due to the respondent and shall continue to pay the rent that falls due till he surrenders the premises. 2) The petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Execution Court stating that he will peacefully RCR.296/2008. -5- surrender possession of the rooms to the respondent on or before 15-7-2009. Such an affidavit shall be filed by the petitioner within 10 days from today and if the Execution Court notices such an affidavit, the court will adjourn the execution proceedings till 16-7-2009. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks.