IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 RCRev..No.331 of 2010 -------------------------- RCP.34/2007 of ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROL COURT, KOCHI RCA.112/2008 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPODENT-TENANT --------------------------------------------------- MARY GEORGE, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O. LATE GEORGE, C.C.9/54, VELI, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.SUSAN MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED LANDLORD ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABY D/O. JOSEPH, PALAPARAMBIL, C.C.9/57, VELI, FORT KOCHI-682002,ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. REJI, D/O. JOSEPH, PALAPARAMBIL, C.C.9/57, VELI, FORT KOCHI-682002,ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. KUNJUMOL, D/O.JOSEPH,PALAPRAMBIL, C.C.9/57, VELI, FORT KOCHI-682002,ERNAKULAM DIST. 4. USHA, D/O.JOSEPH,PALAPARAMBIL, C.C.9/57, VELI, FORT KOCHI-682002,ERNAKULAM DIST. 5. BARRID ANTONY @ KUNJUMON, S/O. JOSEPH, PALAPARAMBIL, C.C.9/57, VELI, FORT KOCHI-682002,ERNAKULAM DIST. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.331 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub Section 3 of Section 11. Having gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we find that the findings entered by those statutory authorities regarding the bona fide need projected by the respondent/landlord and also regarding the tenant's eligibility for the protection of the second R. C. R. No.331 of 2010 -2- proviso are reasonable findings founded on evidence which are available on record. We do not think that there is warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 to interfere with those findings. The revision, necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. We dismiss this revision. 2. After we pronounced the above order Sri.Manoj R. Nair, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner made two requests. The first request was that the revision petitioner be granted at least one year's time to surrender the premises. The second request was that the respondents be directed to refund a sum of Rs.45,000/- allegedly paid by the revision petitioner to the respondents at the time of R. C. R. No.331 of 2010 -3- entrustment of the building. According to Sri.Manoj, the respondents have admitted in evidence that the above sum is paid at the time of entrustment. In view of the above submission, issue urgent notice by speed post to the respondents. Post on 19/11/10. I. A. No.2657/2010 In the meanwhile, there will be interim stay for six weeks. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-