IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 551 of 2005()
1. ANGADITHAZHA RAJAN, S/O.CHOYI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANGADITHAZHA SARASA, D/O.CHOYI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VATHSALAN
For Respondent :SRI.B.KRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No.551 OF 2005
------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009
ORDER
Barkath Ali, J.
The challenge in this Rent Control Revision filed by the
defeated tenant petitioner under Section 20 of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is to the judgment of the
Appellate Authority & District Judge, Kozhikode in RCA
No.46/2003 dated 8/4/2005 confirming the order of eviction
passed by the Rent Controller/Munsiff of Vadakara in RCP
No.12/2002 dated 25/2/2003 under Section 11(2)(b) and 11
(3) of the Act.
2. The revision respondent/landlady filed RCP No.12/2002
before the Rent Controller (Munsiff), Vadakara claiming eviction
under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act alleging that the
tenant has kept the rent in arrears from February 1997 onwards
and that the revision respondent/landlady requires the petition
schedule shop room for her daughter to conduct a tailoring
business, that there are no other suitable building available in
the locality for the landlady to conduct business and that the
tenant is not depending for his livelihood on the income derived
RCR.No.551/2005 2
from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room.
3. The tenant resisted the claim contending that there is no
rent in arrears, that bonafide need put forward by the landlady is
not genuine, that the landlady has other suitable building in that
locality to conduct tailoring shop and that the tenant is entitled to
the protection of the 1st and 2nd provisos to sub section (3) of
Section 11 of the Act.
4. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlady’s husband
was examined as PW1 and her daughter as PW2 and she
produced Exts.A1 to A16. The tenant was examined as RW1 and
he produced Exts.B1 and B2. On an appreciation of the evidence,
the Rent Control Court found that the rent is in arrears and that
the bonafide need put forward by the landlady is genuine, that
the tenant is not depending for his livelihood on the income
derived from the petition schedule shop room and ordered
eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The
Appellate Authority on an appeal by the tenant confirmed the
said findings of the Rent Control Court. The tenant has now
come up in revision.
5. Arguing the revision, Sri. C.Vathsalan, learned counsel
RCR.No.551/2005 3
for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is
a co-owner of the petition schedule shop room after the death of
his father from whom he took the shop room on rent and that
therefore the revision respondent is not entitled to an order of
eviction. This aspect is disputed by Sri.B.Krishnan, learned
counsel for the revision respondent.
6. As regards the contention raised by the revision
petitioner that he is a co-owner of the petition schedule shop
room, no such contention was raised either in the pleadings or in
evidence before the Rent Control Court or before the Appellate
Authority by the tenant. On the other hand, in the counter
statement filed by the tenant before the Rent Control Court, it is
admitted that the revision respondent is the owner of the said
building and that he has paid the rent upto 1997 to the revision
respondent. Therefore, we find no merit in the above contention
raised by the revision petitioner.
7. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the
landlady and the tenant before the Rent Control Court and the
order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the
Appellate Authority. We find no ground to interfere with the
RCR.No.551/2005 4
concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the
Appellate Authority. We find no irregularity, illegality or
impropriety in the order of the Rent Control Court as well as in
the Judgment of the Appellate Authority to invoke our revisional
jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. That being so, the
revision petition has to be dismissed.
8. Lastly, Sri.C.Vathsalan, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submitted that at least one year time may be granted
to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises. This is opposed
by Sri.Krishnan, learned counsel for the revision respondent.
Taking into consideration the fact that the revision petitioner is
conducting a tea shop in the petition schedule building, we feel
that time till 28/2/2010 can be granted to the revision petitioner
on the following conditions:
i). The revision petitioner shall file
an affidavit before the Rent Control
Court within one month from this date
agreeing to surrender peaceful
possession of the petition schedule shop
room to the revision respondent on or
RCR.No.551/2005 5
before 28/2/2010. On receipt of such
affidavit, the Executing Court shall defer
the delivery to 1/3/2010.
ii). The revision petitioner shall pay
arrears of rent up to date within one
month from this date and future rent as
and when the same falls due, failing
which the revision petitioner will not be
entitled to the benefit of time granted by
this order.
8. We hereby make it clear that the order passed in this
revision will not affect the right of the revision petitioner to claim
his alleged right as a co-owner in appropriate proceedings before
the appropriate forum.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with the
above directions.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk