IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 RCRev..No. 187 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.44/2004 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.3/2003 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- C.C.VARGHESE, AGED 48, S/O. SIMON, KERALA OPTICALS, C.C.NO.48/2442, GROUND FLOOR, DIVYA BUILDING, N.H.BYE PASS, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-19, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. SMT. U.DEVI, AGED 70, W/O. LATE V.S.PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MRS. K.P.LAKSHMI, AGED 46, D/O. LATE V.S.PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SRI. K.P.NARAYANAN, AGED 41, S/O. LATE V.S.PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.S.K.MOHAMED SAJEER FOR R1 TO 3 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON 18/11/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1304/2006 IN R.C.R.NO.187/2006 -------- Dismissed Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. 18/11/2008 Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. True Copy P.S. To Judge P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 187 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. Three rooms in a line building which were in possession in the hands of different tenants were sought to be evicted by the landlord on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11(3). The Rent Control court ordered eviction in all the cases, which was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. Two of the cases have become final confirming the order of eviction passed. This is the third one. The Rent Control Court found on evidence that the bona fide need pleased by the landlord for occupation by the third respondent herein who is an Electrical Engineer, was found acceptable and proved. The benefit of the proviso as pleaded by the tenant was found against. Though there was a claim for permanent tenancy, that was also rejected by the Rent Control Court. On all counts the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction. It is against the said order, the present revision is filed. 2. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, sought to withdraw the contentions raised RCR 187/2006 :2: in the revision petition; however, prayed for a reasonable time to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises. 3. The tenant is doing business in the tenanted premises. Eviction was ordered as early as in 2004 and confirmed in appeal and this revision was filed in 2006. Two years have elapsed therefrom and the matter continued under stay. Therefore, this would have alerted the revision petitioner to find out an alternate accommodation. However, taking into consideration of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner in withdrawing the contentions raised in the revision petition, we are persuaded to grant the revision petitioner/tenant a reasonable time to surrender vacant possession. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, will not be executed for a period of six months from today; however, on condition that the revision petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the executing court, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises on or before 18.5.2009 along with the arrears of rent, if any, within a period of three weeks from today, that he shall pay the amount equivalent to rent towards use and occupation of the premises until vacant possession is surrendered and that he shall not RCR 187/2006 :3: induct any third parties into the possession of the premises. If any one of the aforesaid condition is flouted, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below will forthwith become enforceable. Subject to the above. the revision petition is dismissed . P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-