High Court Kerala High Court

P.O.Johnson vs Kamala K.Shenoy on 9 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
P.O.Johnson vs Kamala K.Shenoy on 9 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RCRev..No. 114 of 2009()


1. P.O.JOHNSON,S/O.OUSEPH,AGED 57 YRS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KAMALA K.SHENOY,AGED 62 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.F.JUSTIN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :09/06/2009

 O R D E R
               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
               P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
           ------------------------------------------------
                   R. C. R. No.114 of 2009
           ------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009

                             ORDER

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

The tenant against whom order of eviction has

been passed by the authorities under the Rent Control

Act concurrently under clause-3 of Sub Section 4 of

Section 11 is the petitioner in this revision under

Section 20.

2. Even though Sri.O.F.Justin, learned counsel for

the petitioner addressed us very strenuously, we are

unable to find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity

in the findings of the Rent Control Court and the

Appellate Authority that eviction ground under Section

11(4)(iii) is made out against the petitioner. As his

last submission, Sri.O.F.Justin, learned counsel for the

R. C. R. No.114 of 2009 -2-

petitioner sought for time till the end of this year i.e.

31/12/09 to vacate the premises.

3. Sri.S.Sachithananda Pai, learned counsel for

the landlady who has taken notice, would oppose the

above request tooth and nail. According to him, the

finding is that the tenant is having more space than

what is necessary for him at his disposal within the

limits of the city itself. According to him, there is no

justification for granting more than three months’ time

to the petitioner to surrender the premises.

4. Having considered the rival submissions in the

context of the time to be granted to the revision

petitioner for surrendering the premises, we feel that

the petitioner can be granted time till 30/11/09 to

surrender the premises to the landlady.

R. C. R. No.114 of 2009 -3-

5. Accordingly this RCR is dismissed confirming

the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the

Appellate Authority. At the same time, there will be a

direction to the execution court to adjourn the E.P. to

the first of December, 2009 provided the revision

petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court

stating that he will unconditionally and peacefully

surrender the petition schedule building to the

respondent/landlady on or before 30th of November,

2009 and stating further in the affidavit that he will

discharge the entire arrears of rent, if any, and will

continue to pay the amounts at the present rent rates

towards occupational charges till he surrenders the

building actually. The affidavit as directed above shall

be filed by the revision petitioner within three weeks

and if the affidavit is not filed within the above time

R. C. R. No.114 of 2009 -4-

limit, the revision petitioner will not be entitled for the

benefit of time granted by this order.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

P. Q. BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
kns/-