High Court Kerala High Court

Shibi Francis vs Rekha Harilal on 28 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Shibi Francis vs Rekha Harilal on 28 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RCRev..No. 52 of 2011()


1. SHIBI FRANCIS, KUTHUR VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REKHA HARILAL, KAILAS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ARUN HARILAL, KAILAS,

3. P.J.MARIAMMA, MAVELITHAYYIL,

4. JOJIMOL BAIJU, W/O.BIJU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

 Dated :28/01/2011

 O R D E R
        PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
                      ------------------------
                     R.C.R.No. 52 OF 2011
                      ------------------------

           Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011

                            O R D E R

Balakrishnan, J.

The legal heir of the original tenant is in revision. The

order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court under

Section 11(3). The need projected by the respondents/landlords

was that the petition schedule building is required for

accommodating the daughter of the original landlady for

conducting a beauty parlor. The original landlady died. Her

legal heirs including Rekha Harilal, for whose need the building

was sought to be evicted, were subsequently impleaded. Since

the need was for Smt.Lekha Harilal, the daughter of the

landlady, the need subsists even after the death of the original

landlady. Now, Rekha Harilal is one of the landlords. The

original tenant died and her legal heirs also have been brought

on record. The order of eviction was confirmed by the Appellate

Authority.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed

RCR.No.52/2011 2

arguments on all the grounds stated in the revision petition. But,

we are not persuaded to accept those arguments to upset the

concurrent findings entered by the courts below. Hence, the

revision petition must necessarily fail.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits

that one year time may be granted to the revision petitioner to

vacate the petition schedule building. Having anxiously

considered the request, we are of the view that the tenant can

be granted 9 months time from today to vacate the petition

schedule building but subject to certain conditions.

4. The result therefore is as follows;

i). The revision petition is dismissed.

ii). The tenant(legal heirs of the original tenant) shall file an

affidavit before the Rent Control Court/Executing Court within

three weeks from today undertaking that he will surrender

peaceful possession of the petition schedule building within nine

months from today and undertaking further through the same

affidavit that arrears of rent due as on date will be paid within

one month from today and occupation charges at the current rent

rate will be paid as and when the same falls due.

RCR.No.52/2011 3

We clarify that the tenant will get the benefits of time

allowed as above only if affidavit as directed above is filed and

the undertakings therein are complied with.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk