IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 292 of 2010()
1. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SYAMALABHAI AMMA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :30/09/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 292 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September , 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by
the tenant is the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control
Court on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for
own occupation and confirmed by the Appellate Authority under
the impugned judgment.
2. Even though apparently serious grounds are raised in
the memorandum of revision and Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan, learned
counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed strenuous
arguments before us on the basis of those grounds, having
scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of
the Rent Control Court, we do not find any warrant for invocation
of the present jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965.
We notice that the finding that the need is bona fide and that the
tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to
Section 11(3), has been entered by the statutory authorities on
RCR.No.292/2010 2
the basis of evidence which was actually available on record.
The oral evidence adduced by the landlady, who was examined as
PW1, inspired the Rent Control Court as well as the learned
Appellate Authority. The needy person, daughter of the landlady,
also gave evidence as PW2 and her evidence also inspired the
statutory authorities. We find that the judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003 (2)
KLT 230) was kept in mind by the statutory authorities while
appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties in the context
of second proviso to Section 11(3).
3. As for the ground of arrears of rent also, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner was unable to make any dent
on the findings entered by the statutory authorities which again
are on the basis of evidence on record. The revision necessarily
has to fail and will stand dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a
last plea that at least one year’s time be granted to the revision
petitioner for surrendering the premises. According to the
learned counsel, the revision petitioner has reached the evening
period of his life and he may be allowed to continue in the
RCR.No.292/2010 3
building for one year. Even though we feel that there is
justification for granting some time, we will not be justified in
granting so much of time without notice to the respondent.
Hence, even as we dismiss the RCR confirming the order of
eviction, we are inclined to issue notice to the landlady for
deciding on the duration of time to be granted to the revision
petitioner for surrendering the premises.
The result is that RCR stand dismissed in limine.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
dpk