IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 167 of 2010 --------------------------- RCA.49/07 OF FIRST ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.103/2003 OF PRL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE-II ------------------ REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/TENANT ------------------------------------------------ RATNAKARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE KATTUPARAMBATH KODINILATH BALAN NAIR, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN ADV. SRI.S.K.SAJI RESPONDENT(S): LANDLORD/CO-OWNERS/CO-TENANTS AND EMPLOYEE/ ALLEGED SUB LESSEE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR & MANNARI LAKSHMI AMMA, NELLIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. PUSHPALATHA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.LATE KATTUPARAMBATH KODINILATH BALAN NAIR, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SUGITHA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.LATE KATTUPARAMBATH KODINILATH BALAN NAIR, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. RCR.167/10 -2- 4. CHATHU, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,PROPRIETOR,HOTEL THARA,34/4908, AMBALATHIL PARAMBA CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.167 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 are order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the statutory authorities on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3), subletting under Section 11(4)(i) and also the ground that rent is in arrears under Section 11(2) (b). We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority by which the Rent Control Court's order was confirmed. We find that both R. C. R. No.167 of 2010 -2- the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have very correctly appreciated the evidence in the case which consisted of PWs.1, Exts.A1 to A3, RW1 and C1 to C4 and came to the right conclusion that the landlord was successful in establishing the existence of all the three grounds of eviction invoked in the case. The Appellate Authority has actually re-appreciated the evidence before concurring with the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety vitiating the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. Hence, the persuasive submissions of Sri.Ranjit Narayanan notwithstanding we do not find reason for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate R. C. R. No.167 of 2010 -3- Authority. The revision necessarily has to fail. However, considering the fervent request of Sri.Ranjith Narayanan for grant of time, we are inclined to grant time till 31/01/11 subject to the following conditions:- 2. The result is therefore, as follows:- RCR is dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the building in favour of the respondent till 31/01/11 subject to the following conditions:- The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be undertaking that he will give peaceful surrender of the building to the R. C. R. No.167 of 2010 -4- petitioner in the RCP on or before 31/01/11. It will be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority will be discharged within one month from today and that occupational charges at the contract rent rate by the landlord will also be paid as and when the same falls due till 31/01/11. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of time as granted above only if he files the affidavit on time. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-