IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 308 of 2010()
1. K.P.SREEJAYAN,S/O.LATE K.P.GOVINDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.SUBRAMANIAN,S/O.K.P.CHERIYAKKAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :18/10/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R. C. R. Nos.308 & 309 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
Though apparently attractive grounds have been
raised in these revisions and Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed
very strenuous and persuasive arguments in support
of all the grounds, we are unable to find any illegality,
irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the
Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction
passed under sub Section 3 of Section 11.
Sri.Rajendran, in fact, placed before us the
photographs of the building where the landlord is
presently having his clinic. He also drew our attention
to the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner
of the above building. We do not think that there is
R. C. R. Nos.308 & 309 of 2010 -2-
space or facility available in that building for the
landlord to conduct the proposed business of selling
spectacles in the above building which is in fact a
small building situated in the residential compound of
the landlord.
2. Having regard to the well defined contours of
the jurisdiction under Section 20, we are not in a
position to say that the conclusions concurrently
arrived at by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate
Authority in favour of the landlord are vitiated.
3. The revisions necessarily will have to fail and
will stand dismissed. We dismiss the revisions.
4. After we pronounced the order
Sri.T.G.Rajendran submitted that if notice is issued to
the respondents there is every likelihood of the parties
coming to a compromise. He further submitted that
even if a compromise is not arrived at, the revision
petitioner may have to be given an unusually long
R. C. R. Nos.308 & 309 of 2010 -3-
period of time for surrendering the premises. In view
of the above submissions though we have dismissed
the RCRs we are inclined to issue notice. Issue urgent
notice by speed post. Post on 29/10/10.
I.A. Nos.2557 & 2560 of 2010
Interim stay for six weeks.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P. S. GOPINATHAN
JUDGE
kns/-