IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RCRev..No. 421 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.31/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA O.P. (RC).52/2004 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER\PETITIONER ---------------------------- ALICE OOMMEN, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. SRI. OMMEN VARGHESE, OPAL PHARMACEUTICALS, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.) SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- DR. CHANDRAMATHIYAMMA, AGED 90 YEARS, W/O. LATE SRI. KUNJIRAMAN NAIR, CHELLATTIL HOUSE, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT HILL VIEW, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.3464/2006 IN RCR.NO.421/2006 ------- Dismissed Sd/- P.R.Raman, Judge. 4/12/2008 Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 421 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. This is a revision at the instance of the tenant who is faced with an order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. Even though the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4) of the of the Act, on appeal, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order under Section 11(3). Hence this revision. 2. Since both the courts below have concurrently found in favour of the landlady for bona fide requirement under Section 11(3), after arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner sought to withdraw the contention; but pleaded for a reasonable time for surrendering vacant possession of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that in the tenanted premises, the tenant is doing Ayurvedic preparations and it will take some time to find out a suitable alternate premises and any step to put the landlady in possession of the premises will cause great R.C.R. 421/2006 :2: hardship to the tenant. 3. We have also heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Krishnankutty Achan appearing on behalf of the respondent/landlady. Having heard both sides, we find that it is only appropriate to grant the revision petitioner reasonable time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. In the circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court as affirmed by the Appellate Authority is confirmed and the revision is dismissed. However, execution of the order of eviction passed will stand deferred for a period of eight months from today on the following conditions:- (i) The revision petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the execution court undertaking that she shall surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises on or before 4.8.2008 and deposit/pay the entire arrears of rent as on today, both within a period of one month from today. (ii) She shall continue to pay an amount equivalent to the rent for use and occupation until vacant possession is surrendered, and - (iii) that she shall not induct any third party into the petition schedule building. In case the above conditions are complied with the order of eviction will stand deferred till 4.8.2009. However, on failure to comply with any R.C.R. 421/2006 :3: one of the above said conditions, the order of eviction will become enforceable forthwith. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-