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 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 92 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.52/2006 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM RCP.212/1997 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (TENANT) ------------------------------------------------------------ K.C.VIJAYAN S/O. VAVACHAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, NOW DOING BUSINESS IN CC NO.38/324, S.A.ROAD, NEAR SOUTH OVER BRIDGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS( L.RS OF LANDLORD) -------------------------------------- 1. T.J.JOSHY S/O. THENAPARAMBIL JOSEPH, NEAR SOUTH OVERBRIDGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. 2. T.J.JAMES @ JIMMY, S/O. THENAPARAMBIL JOSEPH, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- 3. T.J.PATSY, D/O. THENAPARAMBIL JOSEPH, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- 4. T.J.JOLLY, S/O. THENAPARAMBIL JOSEPH, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- 5. T.J.JOSSY, S/O. THENAPARAMBIL JOSEPH, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- 6. T.J.JENSON, S/O. THENAPARAMBIL JOSEPH, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- 7. T.J.ROY, S/O. THENAPARAMBIL JOSEPH, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI A BALAGOPALAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.92 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. In this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 arising out of a petition for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, the only point which arises for consideration is whether the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority were justified in upholding the plea of landlord that the tenant has another building in his possession which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement and ordering eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. 2. The facts in brief are these. The landlord filed rent control petition before the Rent Control Court claiming eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965; that is, the landlord bonafide requires the petition schedule room for conducting business and that tenant has alternative building in his possession which is reasonably sufficient for conducting his business. The Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control petition holding that the need is not bonafide and that the tenant is not in possession of any alternative building. In RCR.No.92/09 2 appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, allowed the appeal and ordered eviction on both grounds. The tenant challenged the said judgment in C.R.P.No.2896/2001 before this court. During the pendency of the revision, the landlord died. His legal heirs were impleaded. This court allowed the C.R.P. and set aside the order of eviction on both grounds and remanded the matter to the Rent Control Court to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their contentions. The scope of the remand was to consider the bonafide need of the additional petitioners and the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The judgment of the appellate authority that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was confirmed. After remand, the Rent Control Court disallowed the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act and allowed the claim for eviction under Section 11(4) (iii) of the Act. The appellate authority confirmed the said order. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the said judgment and decree. 2. Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, very strenuously argued that the appellate authority is erred RCR.No.92/09 3 in ordering eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and having gone through the findings concurrently entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the context of eviction ordered under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, we are of the view that there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would lastly request for grant of one year's time to surrender the premises. Notice was given to Sri.A.Balagopalan, learned counsel who appeared for the respondent before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Sri.Balagopalan resisted the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that one year's time may not be granted. 3. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that time for surrendering the premises can be granted upto 31/12/2009 under the following conditions : 1) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the premises on or before 31/12/2009. The affidavit shall be filed within one month from today. 2) If such an affidavit is filed, the execution petition to be RCR.No.92/09 4 filed shall be adjourned to 01/01/2010. 3) The tenant shall discharge the arrears of rent up to 31/12/2009. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.92/09 5