IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 379 of 2010(B) ------------------------ RCA.5/2002 of II ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM RCOP.42/2000 of ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 58 KALA NIKETAN,PERUMAN EAST CHERRY, PANAYAM VILLAGE, PERINADU P.O.,KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. M.ASSANARUKUNJU, AGED 59, S/O.MYDEEN KUNJU, ABILASH, VADAKKEVILA P.O.,KOLLAM 2. ALI,. AGED 63 S/O.MOHAMED SAHIN, HAMEEDA MANZIL, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM 3. MADHUSOODANAN, AGED 62, S/O.BHANU, SARASWATHI VILASAM, VALATHUGAL CHERRY ERAVIPURAM P.O.,KOLLAM ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R1 TO 3 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R.C.R No.379 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11 and also under Section 11(2)(b). Since the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) is a tentative one which is liable to be vacated once arrears of rent, interest and cost are deposited, we, in this revision are seriously concerned only with the order of eviction concurrently passed under Section 11(3). 2. The need projected in the RCP was that the third respondent who is an equal co-owner of the building along R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -2- with respondents 1 and 2 needs the building for the purpose of conducting stationary business therein. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioner who contended that the respondents are Real Estate brokers whose idea was only to sell away the property after evicting the tenant. He claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 also. The Rent Control Court, however, on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties which consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, B1 to B10, X1 and X2 series and the oral evidence of PW1 and CPWs.1 to 3 would hold that the bona fides of the need was established and that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed. The Appellate Authority made a re- appraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the RCA confirming R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -3- the order of eviction. 3. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) and Sri.C.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments before us based on all those grounds. Sri.Unnikrishnan would draw our attention to Annexure-A1 sale deed No.467/05 of the Sub Registry, Kilikoloor. According to Sri.Unnikrishnan Annexure-A1 will show that the landlords have parted with ownership of the petition schedule building in favour of one Muraleedharan. He relied also Annexure-A3 which indicates that the door number of the building wherein the petitioner is conducting business is KP/XI/387 (Kilikoloor Panchayath) which is one of the door numbers mentioned in Annexure-A1. According to him, as the landlord has already parted with ownership of the building in R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -4- respect of which he has secured an order of eviction , the 4th proviso to Section 11(3) applies and the order of eviction is liable to be vacated forthwith. 4. Sri.Subhashchandra Bose, the learned counsel for the landlords would take strong exception to the above submission of Sri.Unnikrishnan. Relying on the averments in the Rent Control Petition including the building description in the schedule to the same, Sri.Bose submitted that the correct door number of the building which is subject matter of the RCP is KC/15/1525 (new) and KP/XI/376 (old). Counsel submitted that it will suffice if the respondents are given eviction of that building. 5. Having considered the submissions addressed by both sides in the context of the dispute regarding the identity of the building in the light of the averments in the RCP and documents Annexures-A1 and A3 it is very clear to R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -5- our mind that the RCP pertains to building having No.KP/XI/376 corresponding to KC/15/1525 and Annexure- A1 pertains to some other building. Under the above circumstances, we clarify that the order of eviction presently passed in favour of the respondents applies only to the above building which is described in the Rule 12 statement which forms part of the Rent Control Petition itself. It is also clarified on the basis of the above materials themselves that the petition schedule building is the ground floor portion. 6. Even though Sri.C.Unnikrishnan made a valiant endeavour to challenge the concurrent findings entered by the statutory authorities in favour of the landlord regarding the bona fides of the claim, we, in the attenuated jurisdiction under Section 20 are not in a position to say that the above findings concurrently entered by the two statutory authorities suffer from any illegality, irregularity or R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -6- impropriety as envisaged by Section 20. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. 7. However, considering the last submission of Sri.Unnikrishnan, a reasonable time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises even as we dismiss the RCR, we direct the execution court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery for a period of seven months from today subject to the following conditions:- 8. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the execution court or Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to surrender the building peacefully to the landlord within seven months' from today and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if any, due as on date will be discharged within one month and further that with effect from 1st February, 2011 till the date of actual surrender, the revision petitioner will pay R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -7- Rs.500/- per mensem as occupational charges to the landlord. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and the undertakings contained therein are honoured. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-