High Court Kerala High Court

K.Gopinathan vs Muhammedkutty on 5 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Gopinathan vs Muhammedkutty on 5 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RCRev..No. 3 of 2010()


1. K.GOPINATHAN, (OWNER OF KALA STUDIO,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.DECEASED CHEKKUTTY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KOYA, RESIDING AT -DO-.

3. NABEESSA UMMA, RESIDING AT -DO-.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :05/01/2010

 O R D E R
         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
                     ------------------------
                      R.C.R.No. 3 OF 2010
                     ------------------------

             Dated this the 5 day of January, 2010
                             th


                            O R D E R

C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.

The tenant is in revision petition against the concurrent

findings of eviction ordered under Section 11(3). The first

petitioner before the Rent Control Court, who is a retired Drugs

Controller, wanted to start a laboratory in the schedule premises.

Hence, eviction is sought for on the basis of bona fide need for

own occupation under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings

(Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short the ‘Act’). Both the

courts concurrently found that the need urged by the landlord is

genuine and bona fide. In spite of vehement arguments

advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner/tenant we do not find any illegality, irregularity or

impropriety with respect to the conclusions arrived at by the

courts below. There is no manifest misappreciation of the

evidence on record. Hence, we are not inclined to admit this

revision petition. However, lastly the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner sought indulgence of this court by granting

one year’s time for vacating the premises on the reason that he

WPC.No.3/2010 2

has to find out alternate place for shifting of the business

conducted in the schedule premises.

2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case, we are inclined to grant time for vacating the premises till

31/7/2010. Therefore, by dismissing the revision petition, the

revision petitioner/tenant is directed to handover peaceful and

vacant possession of the schedule premises to the landlord on or

before 31/7/2010. The Executing Court is directed to defer

ordering delivery of the possession of the schedule room till

1/8/2010 provided the revision petitioner files an affidavit

undertaking to handover vacant possession of the premises on

or before 31/7/2010 and on further condition of his paying the

arrears of rent, if any, due and shall continue payment of

occupational charges at the current rent rate till the date of

vacating the schedule premises. The affidavit as directed above

shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk