IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 379 of 2010()
1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 58
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.ASSANARUKUNJU, AGED 59, S/O.MYDEEN
... Respondent
2. ALI,. AGED 63
3. MADHUSOODANAN, AGED 62,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
For Respondent :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :19/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R.C.R No.379 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is
the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority
confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control
Court on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11 and
also under Section 11(2)(b). Since the order of eviction
passed under Section 11(2)(b) is a tentative one which is
liable to be vacated once arrears of rent, interest and cost
are deposited, we, in this revision are seriously concerned
only with the order of eviction concurrently passed under
Section 11(3).
2. The need projected in the RCP was that the third
respondent who is an equal co-owner of the building along
R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -2-
with respondents 1 and 2 needs the building for the
purpose of conducting stationary business therein. The bona
fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioner
who contended that the respondents are Real Estate
brokers whose idea was only to sell away the property after
evicting the tenant. He claimed the protection of the second
proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 also. The Rent
Control Court, however, on evaluating the evidence adduced
by the parties which consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, B1 to B10,
X1 and X2 series and the oral evidence of PW1 and CPWs.1
to 3 would hold that the bona fides of the need was
established and that the tenant is not entitled for the
protection of the second proviso. Accordingly, order of
eviction was passed. The Appellate Authority made a re-
appraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings
of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the RCA confirming
R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -3-
the order of eviction.
3. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds
have been raised assailing the order of eviction passed
under Section 11(3) and Sri.C.Unnikrishnan, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments
before us based on all those grounds. Sri.Unnikrishnan
would draw our attention to Annexure-A1 sale deed
No.467/05 of the Sub Registry, Kilikoloor. According to
Sri.Unnikrishnan Annexure-A1 will show that the landlords
have parted with ownership of the petition schedule building
in favour of one Muraleedharan. He relied also Annexure-A3
which indicates that the door number of the building
wherein the petitioner is conducting business is KP/XI/387
(Kilikoloor Panchayath) which is one of the door numbers
mentioned in Annexure-A1. According to him, as the
landlord has already parted with ownership of the building in
R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -4-
respect of which he has secured an order of eviction , the 4th
proviso to Section 11(3) applies and the order of eviction is
liable to be vacated forthwith.
4. Sri.Subhashchandra Bose, the learned counsel for
the landlords would take strong exception to the above
submission of Sri.Unnikrishnan. Relying on the averments in
the Rent Control Petition including the building description in
the schedule to the same, Sri.Bose submitted that the
correct door number of the building which is subject matter
of the RCP is KC/15/1525 (new) and KP/XI/376 (old).
Counsel submitted that it will suffice if the respondents are
given eviction of that building.
5. Having considered the submissions addressed by
both sides in the context of the dispute regarding the
identity of the building in the light of the averments in the
RCP and documents Annexures-A1 and A3 it is very clear to
R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -5-
our mind that the RCP pertains to building having
No.KP/XI/376 corresponding to KC/15/1525 and Annexure-
A1 pertains to some other building. Under the above
circumstances, we clarify that the order of eviction presently
passed in favour of the respondents applies only to the
above building which is described in the Rule 12 statement
which forms part of the Rent Control Petition itself. It is also
clarified on the basis of the above materials themselves that
the petition schedule building is the ground floor portion.
6. Even though Sri.C.Unnikrishnan made a valiant
endeavour to challenge the concurrent findings entered by
the statutory authorities in favour of the landlord regarding
the bona fides of the claim, we, in the attenuated
jurisdiction under Section 20 are not in a position to say that
the above findings concurrently entered by the two statutory
authorities suffer from any illegality, irregularity or
R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -6-
impropriety as envisaged by Section 20. The revision
necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed.
7. However, considering the last submission of
Sri.Unnikrishnan, a reasonable time be granted to the
revision petitioner to surrender the premises even as we
dismiss the RCR, we direct the execution court to keep in
abeyance proceedings for delivery for a period of seven
months from today subject to the following conditions:-
8. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within
three weeks from today before the execution court or Rent
Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to surrender
the building peacefully to the landlord within seven months’
from today and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if
any, due as on date will be discharged within one month
and further that with effect from 1st February, 2011 till the
date of actual surrender, the revision petitioner will pay
R.C.R No.379 of 2010 -7-
Rs.500/- per mensem as occupational charges to the
landlord. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will
get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the
affidavit on time and the undertakings contained therein are
honoured.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
kns/-