IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 90 of 2009()
1. GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O. KORAGAPPA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KALLYANI G.SHETTY, D/O. SANJEEVA SHETTY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :28/05/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.C.R.No.90 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009
ORDER
Barkath Ali, J.
This revision is filed by the defeated tenant challenging the order
of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction under Section 11(3) and 11
(4)(iii) of the Act 2 of 1965 which is confirmed by the appellate
authority.
2. The facts in brief are these ;
The landlady filed the rent control petition before the Rent
Control Court claiming eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11
(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965, on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide need
and that the tenant has acquired possession of another building of his
own which is reasonably sufficient for his occupation. The tenant/
revision petitioner resisted the claim contending that the rent is not in
arrears, the rate of rent claimed by the landlord is not correct, that the
bonafide need set up by the landlady is false and frivolous and that her
son for whose need the eviction is sought is not the dependent of the
landlady, that he is having his own independent business and that the
RCR.No.90/2009 2
tenant is not having any other room in his possession.
3. PW1, the landlady’s husband and PW2, her son were
examined before the Rent Control Court and Ext.A1 to A20(b) were
marked. The tenant was examined as RW1 and he produced Ext.B1 to
B4 before the Rent Control Court.
4. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of the evidence
allowed the Rent Control Petition on all grounds. In appeal, the
Appellate Authority set aside the finding of the Rent Control Court
under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed findings under
Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The tenant has come up in
revision challenging the said judgment and decree of the Appellate
Authority.
5. Sri.P.P.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner strenuously argued that the Appellate Authority as well as
the Rent Control erred in holding that the landlady bonafide needs the
petition schedule shop room for conducting business of his son and that
the tenant has acquired another building of his own.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel and having gone through the evidence adduced by both parties
RCR.No.90/2009 3
before the Rent Control Court and the order of the Rent Control Court
and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that
there is no ground for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 20 of the Act. That being so, the revision petition has to be
dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner requests for one
year’ time for surrendering the building. In the circumstances, we are
inclined to grant six month’s time to the revision petitioner for
surrendering the building on the following conditions :
1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the lower
court within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful
possession of the building within six months from this date.
2) He shall discharge arrears of rent till the date of surrender
before the Rent Control Authority.
Both parties shall suffer their respective costs.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv.
RCR.No.90/2009 4