IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No. 203 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.13/2007 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM RCP.17/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED SALI, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 60 T.C, 39/594(OLD T.C.36/498) MALAKKARIKADA ROAD, CHALAI, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ HAMEEDA BEEVI, D/O.MARIAN BEEVI, KOTTAPAKKU HOUSE, CHALAI, TRIVANDRUM, (NOW RESIDING AT"NILA" KRA-10, MANACAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BYADV. SRI.B.SATHIQ THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.203 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 24thday of September, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner and he challenges the orders of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of bona fide need. The bona fide need projected by the landlady was that she wanted to conduct a vegetable shop in the petition schedule building and augment the family's income. The tenant denied the bona fides of the need projected. The tenant also claimed protection of the second proviso to sub section(3) of Section 11 of the Act. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and found that the need is bona fide. It was also found that the tenant has not succeeded in satisfying either of the ingredients of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The Appellate Authority re appreciated the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. 2. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed us extensively on the various grounds RCR.No.203/2009 2 raised in the revision petition. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having considered the submissions of Smt.Zohara, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady, we are of the view that there is no warrant at all for interfering with the impugned order and judgment, wherein it has been concurrently found that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide and the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 3. As his last submission Sri.Kalkura requested that, considering the circumstances which attend on this case, the revision petitioner be granted time till 30/6/2010 to surrender the petition schedule building. The above request is very stiffly opposed by Smt.Zohara. She submits that granting more than six months time will be very unfair to the landlady. Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that there is justification for granting time till 30/6/2010 subject to certain conditions. The result is as follows; The RCR is dismissed confirming the orders of eviction passed against the revision petitioner. The Rent Control Court is directed not to order and effect RCR.No.203/2009 3 delivery of the petition schedule building till 30/6/2010 subject to the following conditions; The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, within three weeks from today undertaking to discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and will also continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate as and when the same falls due. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of time granted under this Judgment only if the affidavit as directed above is filed within the time limit. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk