IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 297 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.14/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , PALAKKAD RCP.45/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S):/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT-TENANT ----------------------------- M. MURUGAN @ APPU, S/O. GOPAL ACHARIAR, AGED 59 YEARS, DOOR NO. 32/337, KRISHNA VIHAR, SOUTH EAST ROW OF POLICE QUARTERS, VADAKKANTHARA ROAD, VADAKKANTHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER-LANDLORD ------------------------- G. KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O. GOPAL ACHARIAR, AGED 70 YEARS, DOOR NO. 32/337, KRISHNA VIHAR, SOUTH EAST ROW OF POLICE QUARTERS, VADAKKANTHARA ROAD, VADAKKANTHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 297 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision. The respondent/landlord sought to evict him on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation and additional accommodation. The revision petitioner disputed bona fides of the need and claims that he, at any rate, is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. The Rent Control Court enquired into the mater and on evaluating the evidence concluded that the need projected by the landlord was a bona fide one. It was also concluded that the revision petitioner tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. That court also found that the rent was in arrear as alleged and accordingly passed order of eviction under Section 11(3) and 11 (2) (b). The Rent Control Court did not pass any order of eviction under Section 11(8). 2. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal and since RCR.No.297/2009 2 during the pendency of the appeal the entire arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Court was discharged. The Appellate Authority vacated the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2) (b). However, on reappreciating the evidence the Appellate Authority also concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) and accordingly confirmed the order of eviction. It is challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the present revision is filed raising various grounds. 3. Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us very strenuously on the basis of the various grounds raised. However, having scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, wherein findings have been entered concurrently that the need projected by the landlord is a bona fide one and that the tenant is not entitled for the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, we are of the view that those findings are not vitiated by any irregularity, impropriety or illegality warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. Accordingly, we are inclined to confirm the order of eviction RCR.No.297/2009 3 passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. The RCR necessarily has to fail. However, considering the last request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that reasonable time be granted to the revision petitioner to vacate the building, we are inclined to grant time till 16.6.2010 subject to certain conditions. 4. Result of the above discussion is therefore as follows; i). The revision petition is dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. ii). The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 16/6/2010 subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent on or before 16/6/2010. Through the same affidavit, the revision petitioner will undertake to discharge arrears of rent, if any presently due within one month and also to pay occupational charges for the building at RCR.No.297/2009 4 the current rent rate till 16/6/2010 promptly as and when the same falls due. The revision petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk