IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 129 of 2009()
1. KOTTAPPARATH AHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P. SEENATH, W/O. SULAIMAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :15/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R. C. R. No.129 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The tenant is the revision petitioner and he
challenges in this revision under Section 20, the order
of eviction concurrently passed against him by the
Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the
ground of bona fide own occupation under Section 11
(3) and the ground that the tenant has put up another
building of his own reasonably sufficient for his
requirement under clause 3 Sub Section 4 of Section
11.
2. Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned counsel for the
petitioner has addressed us extensively and very
persuasively. He submitted that it has come out in
R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -2-
evidence that the building on the basis of which
eviction was sought for under clause 3 of sub Section
4 of Section 11 is not presently under the occupation
of the tenant. It is under the occupation of the
tenant’s tenant. As for the ground under sub Section
3 of Section 11, he submitted that the need projected
is the need of the respondent/landlady’s husband to
start business. But it was not proved that the
respondent/landlady’s husband is dependent on the
respondent/landlady.
3. We have anxiously considered the submissions
of Sri.P.C.Chacko, the learned counsel for the
petitioner. We have carefully gone through the order
of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the
Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is seen that the
R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -3-
findings entered into by the Rent Control Court and
the Appellate Authority that the revision petitioner is
liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iii), are based
on evidence. It is not financial dependency which is
necessary for the purpose of ground under clause 3
Section 11. It has become evident that the husband of
landlady does not have any other building of his own
in possession. Thus, it stands proved that the
landlady’s husband is dependent on the landlady for
the purpose of a building for commencing business.
Putting up of a building or coming into possession of a
building or having possession of a building already –
are sufficient to constitute an eviction ground under
Section 11(4)(iii). If the tenant is not in possession of
the building pointed out by the landlady for getting
R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -4-
order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii), that is only
because of the said building was let out by the tenant
to his tenant. Under these circumstances, the
argument that presently the said building is possessed
not by the tenant but by the tenant’s tenant will not
improve matters for the revision petitioner/tenant.
4. Having regard to the contours of this Court’s
jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any
warrant for interference on the eviction passed under
either of the grounds.
5. As his last submission, Sri.P.C.Chacko
requested that at least one year’s time be granted for
peacefully surrendering the premises. We are not
inclined to grant so much of time. However, we feel
that in the circumstances of the case and by way of
R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -5-
indulgence that time can be granted till 31st December,
2009.
The result of this RCR therefore, is as follows:-
1) The RCR is dismissed.
2) However, the execution court is directed not
to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule
building till 31/12/09 on condition that the revision
petitioner files an affidavit within three weeks from
today either before the execution court or before the
Rent Control Court stating that he will unconditionally
and peacefully surrender the petition schedule building
to the respondent/landlady on or before 31st of
December, 2009 and that he will discharge the arrears
of rent, if any, within one month and will continue to
pay occupational charges at the current rent rates till
R. C. R. No.129 of 2009 -6-
the date of actual surrender as and when the same
falls due. If the revision petitioner does not file
affidavit within the time limit mentioned above he will
not be entitled for the benefit of time granted by this
judgment.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P. Q. BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
kns/-