IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 443 of 2006()
1. SAHITHYA PRAVARTHAKA CO-OP. SOCIETY
... Petitioner
2. NATIONAL BOOK STALL,
Vs
1. SATHEESH NAIR,
... Respondent
2. SURESH CHANDRAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :22/01/2007
O R D E R
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ
=============================
R.C.R. No. 443 OF 2006
==============================
Dated this the 22nd day of January 2007
ORDER
Udayabhanu,J
The Revision Petitioner/tenant is a Co-Operative society under
orders of eviction as per concurrent orders challenged herein. The
petitioner/landlord has sought for vacant possession of the premises as
they wanted to shift their proprietary and partnership business in food
products to the petition schedule premises i.e., to the ground and first
floor and use the second floor as a conference room. PW1, the
manager of the landlord, has testified with respect to the needs set up.
It is the case of the petitioners that they are running their business
right now in tenanted premises and they wanted to shift business to
the petition schedule premises. The contention of the revision
petitioner/tenant is that the petitioner can use the second floor of the
building which is in their possession. It is the contention of the
petitioners/landlords that the entire building is required for their
business purposes. We find that the review petitioner is not entitled to
dictate the landlord to shift their business to the 2nd floor of their own
building without disturbing the tenant who is in possession of the
R.C.R. No. 443 of 2006 2
ground floor. The petitioners have justified as to their need for the
ground floor, first floor and the second floor. Rent Control Court as
well as Appellate Authority has found that the bonafide need set up is
genuine, and rightly so. We find that, in view of the reasons explained
in the judgments of the courts below, there is no reason to interfere
and RP is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
2. All the same considering the plea of the counsel for the
petitioner that sufficient time should be provided to vacate the
premises, the revision petitioners are granted 4 months time from
today onwards to surrender vacant possession on condition that they
shall remit the entire arrears of rent due if any and continue to remit
the rent due in future and file an affidavit before the execution court
undertaking that the premises shall be vacated on or before
22.05.2007.
In the result, the R.C.R. is dismissed in limine
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR, JUDGE
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.
RV
R.C.R. No. 443 of 2006 3