IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 285 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.33/1997 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. RCP.66/1993 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------- S.KUMAR, S/O.SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM AMC 17/1390,AMMUKKUTTY AMMAL COMPOUND, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.SOUNDARI, W/O.LATE SHANMUGHA SUNDARAN NO.2 II STREET, BRIND NAGAR WEST,THOOTHIKUDI, TAMIL NADU. 2. R.DHANALEKSHMI, D/O.LATE SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM, 68-A, MATHA MELA STREET, THIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU. 3. S.ARUNACHALAM, S/O.LATE SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM, NO.2 II STREET, BRIND NAGAR WEST THOOTHIKUDI, TAMIL NADU. 4. C.AKHILANDESWARI, D/O.LATE SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM, RAJ BHAVAN, C-9 4/891, EAST SANTHI NAGAR REHUMATH NAGAR, PALAYAKKOTTAI,TAMIL NADU. 5. K.GOMATHI, D/O.LATE SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM, 27-B,MANNAKANJARA NAYANNAR STREET, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TAMIL NADU. 6. T.SUBBALEKSHMI, D/O.LATE SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM, 79/86,AMMAN SANNATH THERU,SHENKOTTAI, TAMIL NADU. 7. N.LEELA W/O.G.T.NATARAJA PILLAI C/O.N.RAJAGOPAL, HOME NO.34/02 CSSC HOUSING COLONY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. N.RAJAGOPAL, S/O.G.T.NATARAJA PILLAI HOME NO.34/02 CSSC HOUSING COLONY, THIRUVANANTHAPU RAM. ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R7 & 8 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.285 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 ORDER C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The revision petitioner is a son of the original tenant Sri. Shanmugha Sundaram, who was the second counter petitioner before the Rent Control Court. The original landlady Smt.Sundarammal had filed the rent control petition with respect to two buildings against two of her tenants. The ground for eviction urged is bonafide need under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease & Rent Control) Act 1965. (Hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short). The need urged is for residence of the landlady along with her son and his family. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction finding that the need projected by the landlady is bonafide. The second counter petitioner in the rent control petition took up the matter in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. During pendency of the appeal, he died. The revision petitioner got himself impleaded as additional second appellant. The other legal heirs of the original appellant R.C.R.No. 285/2008 2 were impleaded as additional respondents. During the pendency of the appeal, the original landlady's as well as her son expired. The widow of the original landlady's son and the deceased sons' son got impleaded as respondents 8 and 9 in the appeal, who are respondents 7 & 8 in this Revision Petition. 2. The appellate court dismissed the appeal finding that the petition schedule building is in bonafide need for residence of the widow of the deceased son of the original landlady along with her disabled son (deceased son's son). 3. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is no evidence adduced to prove that the widow of the deceased son or her child, need the petition schedule building for their occupation or residence. It is noticed that, the pleading in the rent control petition itself is that the schedule building was required for residence of the original landlady along with her son and his family. It has come out in evidence that the son of the original landlady was employed in Travancore Titanium at Thriuvananthapuram and that they were residing in a rented house. It has further come out in evidence that the deceased son of the original landlady R.C.R.No. 285/2008 3 retired and they were having no residential house of their own at any other place. Therefore, the need urged is for residence of the original landlady and her sons' family at the petition schedule building. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8 had brought to our notice the evidence of the original landlady, who was examined as PW1. She had categorically deposed that her son has got a disabled child and she is intending to start residence in the petition schedule building along with the son, his wife and the disabled child. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the deceased son has got other children apart from the disabled child and they are settled at different places. But no evidence is forthcoming to the effect that the widow of the deceased son as well as the disabled child has got any other place of residence of their own. Under the above circumstances, we could not agree with the contention that after the death of the original landlady and her son, the widow of the deceased son and her child is not in bonafide need of the petition schedule building for their residence. 4. The counsel for the revision petitioner drew our attention to the evidence of the counter petitioner, based on Ext.B1 R.C.R.No. 285/2008 4 letter. According to him, the landlady has made an offer to sell the schedule building to the tenants. Based on this, it is contended that the need urged is not bonafide. Ext.B1 letter seems to be one sent by the original landlady during the year 1986, much before filing of the rent control petition. Further, the contents of Ext.B1 letter does not reveal any concrete offer made for disposal of the petition schedule building nor there is any evidence to prove that there was any negotiation progressed based on Ext.B1. Under such circumstances, we are are not in a position to accept the contention based on Ext.B1 letter to hold that the need urged was not bonafide. 6. The counsel for the Revision Petitioner lastly raises apprehension that after getting the tenants evicted, the legal heirs of the original landlady may try to dispose of the petition schedule building without occupying the premises by themselves. Such apprehension cannot be entertained in view of the statuary provision under Section 11 (12) of the Act. On such an event, it goes without saying that, the revision petitioner has got effective remedy of invoking the provision of Section 11 (12) of the Act before the Rent Control Court. R.C.R.No. 285/2008 5 7. The counsel for the Revision Petitioner Sri.K.N.Venugopala Panicker, having been convinced of the fact that we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the court below, made request to grant six months' time for vacating the tenanted premises. The counsel for respondents 7 and 8 vehemently opposed the request. However, having been considered the circumstances prevailing, we are of the view that four months' time can be granted to the Revision Petitioner to vacate from the premises. Accordingly, we grant time for vacating and handing over peaceful possession of the petition schedule building till 15/6/2009. The Revision Petitioner will file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court undertaking to vacate the premises and undertaking to handover peaceful possession of the plaint schedule building to respondents 7 & 8 within the above said period. It was brought to our notice that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had already been deposited towards arrears of rent, as per the direction issued in a previous revision petition. After appropriating the said amount in deposit, if it is found that there is any arrears of rent, the Revision Petitioner will also deposit the balance amount before the Rent Control court, along R.C.R.No. 285/2008 6 with the affidavit to be filed. The affidavit, as stated above, shall be filed within ten days from today. The Rent Control Revision is disposed of accordingly. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk