High Court Kerala High Court

Ismail vs Mrs.P.M.Nabeesa on 12 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Ismail vs Mrs.P.M.Nabeesa on 12 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 220 of 2010()


1. ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MRS.P.M.NABEESA, AGED 59 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.SABU GEORGE

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

 Dated :12/03/2010

 O R D E R
               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
             K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
    ------------------------------------------------
             R. P. No.220 of 2010 in
              R. C. R. No.255 of 2008
    ------------------------------------------------
      Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010

                       ORDER

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

We allow the R.P. to the extent of

substituting the last para (para 6) in our judgment

by the following paragraph:-

We, therefore, are in agreement with the

authorities below that the need for additional

accommodation projected by the petitioner is a

bona fide one. The result is that the RCR is

dismissed. The Appellate Authority has not

specifically considered the question of

comparative advantages and hardships. But, we

notice that no proper pleadings in this context is

R. P. No.220 of 2010 -2-

raised by the tenant. We have re-appreciated the

evidence. We find that the advantages which the

landlady may gain by getting the order of eviction

will outweigh the hardships to be sustained by the

tenant because of the order of eviction. Since we

are deciding the issue of the tenant’s eligibility for

protection of the proviso to sub section 10 of

section 11 i.e. the question of comparative

advantages and hardships ourselves instead of

remitting the matter back to the Appellate

Authority for entering a specific finding, we feel

that an unusually long period can be granted to

the revision petitioner/tenant for surrendering the

premises. Hence, we are inclined to grant time till

31st July, 2010. However, such time will be

R. P. No.220 of 2010 -3-

granted only subject to the following conditions:-

1) The entire arrears of rent as alleged in the

Rent Control Petition inclusive of the rent due up

to date shall be paid by the revision petitioner

within two months.

2) Occupational charges at the current rent

rate should also be paid till date of actual

surrender as and when the same falls due.

3) An affidavit incorporating the undertaking

to surrender the premises on 31/07/10 will be

filed by the revision petitioner on or before

25/03/10.

It is clarified that unless affidavit as directed

above is filed the revision petitioner will not be

entitled for benefit of time granted as above.

R. P. No.220 of 2010 -4-

R.P is allowed to the extent of modifying the

judgment as above.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
kns/-