IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 141 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.7/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM RCP.3/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER-TENANT --------------------------------------- K.T.YOHANNAN, S/O.THOMAS KARAPPALLIL HOUSE, MANTHURUTHY NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER-LANDLORD: -------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH MANJAPPALLIL HOUSE KARUKACHAL KARA, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. MARIYAMMA THOMAS, W/O.JOSEPH THOMAS MANJAPPALLIL HOUSE KARUKACHAL KARA, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 3. JESSY ANISH,W/O. ANISH THOMAS MANJAPPALLIL HOUSE KARUKACHAL KARA, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV.SRI.KOSHY GEORGE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.141 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R Barkath Ali, J. The challenge in this revision is the order passed by the Rent Control Court, Changanacherry ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act which is confirmed by the Addl. Rent Control Appellate Authority Kottayam. 2. The landlords/respondents filed Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control Court claiming eviction under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 alleging that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears and that landlords bona fide need the petition schedule shop room for the occupation of 3rd respondent, daughter-in-law of the first respondent for conducting a clinical laboratory. The tenant resisted the claim on the ground that bona fide need put forward by the landlords is not true and that the landlords have another building in their possession for conducting the clinical laboratory, that the tenant is depending for his livelihood on the income RCR.No.141/2009 2 derived from the business conducted by him in the petition schedule room and that no other shop room is available in the locality for him to conduct the business which is conducted by him in the petition schedule room. 3. PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the landlords before the Rent Control Court. The tenant got himself examined as CPW1. CPW2 and 3 were examined on behalf of the tenant and he produced Exts.B1 to B12. The report of the commissioner was marked as C1 and the photographs produced by the commissioner were marked as C2 (a) to (e). Ext.X1 account statement was also marked. The Rent Control Court, on an evaluation of the evidence, found that the landlords' bona fide need the petition schedule shop room to conduct a clinical laboratory for 3rd respondent, that the first respondent is in possession of another room but it is used by him for conducting another business, that the tenant has not proved that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room and that he also failed to prove that no suitable building is available in the locality to shift his business RCR.No.141/2009 3 and ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The claim for eviction under Section 11 2(b) was denied as the tenant has paid the entire arrears of rent. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. 4. The learned counsel for the tenant argued that subsequent to the disposal of the appeal, the 3rd revisional respondent was employed in Gulf and that the bona fide need urged by the landlords does not survive. The learned counsel for the landlords would stoutly deny the said contentions. 5. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both the parties before the Rent Control Court and perused the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. We do not find any fallacy in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts. The counsel for the revision petitioner was not able to point out any misreading of evidence or failure to consider any material piece of evidence . We find no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the Rent Control Court or in the judgment of the Appellate Authority. That being so, the revision petition has to be RCR.No.141/2009 4 dismissed. 6. Sri.Alex M.Scaria, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that the tenant is conducting a tyre business in the petition schedule shop room and requested one year's time for surrendering the petition schedule shop room, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the landlords. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that time up to 31/12/2009 can be granted to the tenant to surrender the building on the following conditions; i). The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within three weeks from today agreeing to surrender peaceful possession of the building to the landlords on or before 31/12/2009. On filing such affidavit, the Execution Court shall adjourn the Execution Petition to 1/1/2010. ii). The tenant shall pay the rent RCR.No.141/2009 5 up to date before the rent Control Court till he surrenders possession of the building. If the tenant fails to comply with the above conditions, he will not be entitled to the benefit of time granted under this judgment. The Revision Petition is dismissed with the above direction. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk