IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No. 226 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.4/2003 of ADDL.SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II)KASARAGODE RCP.10/2002 of ADDL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS(S): -------------------- 1. RADHA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O.LATE NARASIMHA, BATTAMPARA OPPOSITE SRIKRISHNA TEMPLE, KASARGOD KASBA VILLAGE, POST KASARGODE, KASARGODE TALUK. 2. HARISHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. S/O..LATE NARASIMHA, BATTAMPARA OPPOSITE SRIKRISHNA TEMPLE, KASARGOD KASBA VILLAGE, POST KASARGODE, KASARGODE TALUK. 3. HARINI, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. .LATE NARASIMHA, BATTAMPARA OPPOSITE SRIKRISHNA TEMPLE, KASARGOD KASBA VILLAGE, POST KASARGODE, KASARGODE TALUK. 4. SANTHOSHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARASIMHA, BATTAMPARA OPPOSITE SRIKRISHNA TEMPLE, KASARGOD KASBA VILLAGE,POST KAS ARGODE, KASARGODE TALUK. 5. RAJANI, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. LATE NARASIMHA, BATTAMPARA OPPOSITE SRIKRISHNA TEMPLE, KASARGOD KASBA VILLAGE,K POST KASARGODE, KASARGODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SMT.R.LEELA SRI.JIMMY.N.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- SATHYAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O. DR. BALAKRISHNA SHEETI, LANDOWNER, RES. KAT KAPU TALUK & DISTRICT, POST KAPA (DIED). SRI.SURESHKUMAR KODOTH (CAVEATOR) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.226 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 ORDER Surendra Mohan, J. The revision petitioners are the tenants. They challenge the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court against them under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of late Narasimha, who was the original tenant. The landlords filed Rent Control Petition alleging that the tenants had defaulted payment of rent from March 1977 onwards. They also claimed that they wanted the property for their own use and occupation. According to them, they were not in possession of any other building that could satisfy their requirements. 2. The Rent Control Petition was resisted by the tenants contending that the need put forward by the landlords was only a ruse for eviction. The tenants also contended that they had spent large amounts for the modification of the building and that RCR.No.226/2009 2 they were in occupation of the premises since 1964. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, besides Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 documents. On a consideration of the evidence on record and the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court found that the tenants were liable to be evicted under Section 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act. 3. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court was challenged by the tenants before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kasaragod in R.C.A. No. 4/2003. On a reappraisal of the evidence on record, the Appellate Authority found that the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court was justified. Therefore, the appeal was also dismissed. The tenants have come up in revision before this court against the orders of the Authorities below. 4. We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the respondents at length. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has not been able to point out any error or infirmity in the findings of the Authorities below. We also not find that the concurrent findings of the courts below suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Therefore, we confirm RCR.No.226/2009 3 the orders of eviction passed by the Authorities below. As his last submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners requested for the grant of a period of one year as time for vacating the tenanted premises. The prayer of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the landlords pointing out that already the proceedings have consumed a number of years and the landlords have been prevented from satisfying their need which was bona fide and urgent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a reasonable time could be granted to the tenants to vacate the premises subject to the appropriate conditions. 5. The Rent Control Revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. However, the tenants shall be granted time up to 5/4/2010 for surrendering vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlords subject to the following conditions; i). The first revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court on behalf of other revision petitioners also, within a period of one month from today undertaking to surrender vacant possession RCR.No.226/2009 4 of the tenanted premises to the landlords on or before 5/4/2010. ii). The revision petitioners/tenants shall pay all arrears of rent due in respect of the tenanted premises to the landlords and shall continue to pay the rent in respect of the premises regularly and without default till they surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlords. Iii). The landlords shall be free to execute the order of eviction granted, in the event of default on the part of the tenants, of any of the above conditions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk