IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 2 of 2011 ------------------------ RCA.36/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.65/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------- IQBAL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMON, 31/673, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS PETITIONER & SUPPL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.R.SREENIVASA IYER, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.LATE VENKITESWARA IYER, NOORANI GRAMAM, PIRAYIRI, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, (PO) PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT-678019. 2. K.M.RAHMATH, W/O.LATE KUNJUMON, VARANTHINGAL, PALLIPPURAM, KALLIKKAD,(PO) PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT - 678006. 3. IYSHUMMA U.K., W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, 10/411, POOCHIRA, (PO) PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT - 678001. 4. SUHARA U.K., W/O.KABEER, KARUPPAN VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, KALLIKKAD, (PO) PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT-678001. 5. ARAFATH U.K., S/O.LATE KUNJUMON, KARUPPAN VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, KALLIKKAD, (PO)PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT-678001. RCR.2/2011 -2- 6. ARSHAD U.K., S/O.LATE KUNJUMON, KARUPPAN VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, KALLIKKAD, (PO)PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT-678001. 7. ABILA U.K., W/O.MUJEEB RAHMAN, CHANDANAMKURUSSI, NURANI P.O., 678 004, PALAKKAD. 8. FATHIMA U.K., D/O.LATE KUNJUMON, CHENDANAMKURUSSI, NURANI P.O., 678 004, PALAKKAD. 9. P.A.MUTHALEEF, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.AYOOB, 46/81, PARACKAL HOUSE, KULLIKKAD (PO) PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT-678001. CAVEATER (RESPONDENT) – SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.2 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 ORDER Balakrishnan, J The tenant is the revision petitioner. Order of eviction was passed against him under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made submissions assailing the rate of rent decided by the courts below. It was concurrently found by the courts below giving cogent reasons that the rent payable was Rs.35/- per month. Since it is a concurrent finding we are not inclined to interfere with the finding so entered by the courts below. The tenant can get the order of eviction under Section 11(2) (b) vacated resorting to Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. 3. As regards the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act, R. C. R. No.2 of 2011 -2- the need projected by the landlord is that he intends to start handloom textile business in the petition schedule building. The claim was resisted by the tenant stating that the landlord who was examined as PW1 is aged 71 years and it is most unlikely that he would now think of starting a business in textiles in the petition schedule building which is a tiny building. It is further pointed out that the children of the landlord are not available in the native place so as to help the landlord in the conduct of the business and so the landlord does not bona fide need the building. 4. The learned Rent Controller after analysing the evidence found that the need urged by the landlord is a genuine and honest one and that it is not a pretext for eviction. The learned Appellate Authority also on a re- appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. It is seen that the tenant did not adduce satisfactory evidence to prove R. C. R. No.2 of 2011 -3- both the ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11(3) and as such, he could not get the protection under that proviso. 5. Sri.Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant vehemently argued that since there is evidence to show that PW1 who was formerly conducting a petrol bunk stopped the same in 1980 and thereafter he has been sitting idle it will give a clear indication that the landlord is not intending to start any business in the petition schedule building, on the other hand, the intention is only to throw out the tenant. But on going through the evidence which was scanned by the two authorities below it could be seen that PW1 though aged 71 years can conduct the business in handloom textiles getting the aid and assistance from employees and other persons. It is also to be borne in mind that admittedly the children of PW1 are working abroad. So it is possible for PW1 to get R. C. R. No.2 of 2011 -4- financial assistance from his children in the conduct of the business. It is also stated that the wife of PW1 would also help him in the conduct of the business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the need projected by the landlord is tainted with mala fides or with oblique motives. The authorities below made every endeavour to gauge the truth and has rightly come to the conclusion that the need urged by the landlord is not unjust or irrational. We are reminded of the contours of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the finding entered by the courts below. As such, the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) is confirmed. 6. Sri.Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the tenant may be granted sufficient time to vacate the tenanted premises. We are inclined to grant time to the tenant to vacate the premises till 31/12/11 but on certain conditions. We notice that the R. C. R. No.2 of 2011 -5- monthly rent presently paid by the tenant is only Rs.35/-. It is seen to be very low. We are of the considered view that the occupational charges to be paid by the tenant should be increased to Rs.100/-. Since this enhancement is only tentative, if any party wants to challenge the same, he can move the Rent Controller under Section 5 of the Act. 7. The result, therefore, is the revision petition will stand dismissed. 8. The revision petitioner/tenant is granted time to vacate the petition schedule building till 31/12/11 on the following conditions:- He will 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 on or before 31/12/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if any, due as on date will be discharged within one month; and further that R. C. R. No.2 of 2011 -6- with effect from 1st February, 2011 till the date of actual surrender the tenant will pay Rs.100/- per mensem as occupational charges to the landlord. We make it clear that the tenant will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertaking. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-