IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 36 of 2007()
1. V.K. MADHU, S/O.GOPALAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KURICHYANIYIL CLARAMMA, W/O. JOSEPH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :06/02/2007
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
&
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ
---------------------------------------------
R.C.R.No.36 of 2007
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2007
ORDER
UDAYABHANU, J
The Revision Petitioner is the tenant who is under order of
eviction of the Rent Control Appellate Authority upholding the
case set up under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlady had sought for
eviction on the ground of bonafide need for starting a provision
store for her husband who is depending on her and who is not
engaged in any other occupation. Of course, the Rent Control
Court had turned down the plea. But the appellate authority,
considering the evidence adduced has found that the need set up
is bonafide.
2. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the
petitioner owned a multi storied building and that there are
vacant rooms in the above building. We find that the above set
up even if true would not attract the first proviso to Section 11
(3) of the Act. So far as other contention of the Revision
RCR36/2007 Page numbers
Petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner is aged above 70
and there is no bonafides in need set up, we are not able to
agree with the above contention as well. Every thing will depend
upon the nature of health of the husband of the petitioner.
There is no contention that he is physically unfit. It is also
possible that the husband of the petitioner can manage the
business by engaging persons who can manage the business. It
has also came up in evidence that the husband of the petitioner
was running a grocery store earlier. There is no contention that
the landlady has no resources and that the husband of the
petitioner is not having the required knowhow to run the
business. Considering the fact that the husband of the
petitioner/landlady is not having any other avocation, the need
set up cannot be rejected on the ground that he is aged. So far
as the finding of the appellate authority under Section 11(3) is
concerned with respect to the bonafide need, there is no reasons
to interfere. So far as the protection of second proviso to
Section 11(3) is concerned, the same is concurrent. The
Revision Petitioner/tenant has failed to establish the ingredients
of the second proviso to Section 11(3). Hence there is no reason
RCR36/2007 Page numbers
to interfere in the finding in this regard also. In these
circumstances, the revision petition filed is not liable to be
admitted. The same is dismissed in limine.
3. The counsel for the revision petitioner has sought for
time to vacate the premises at least for a period of one year. We
find that it would be reasonable that to allow four months time to
vacate. The revision petitioner/tenant is directed to vacate the
premises within four months from today on condition that she
shall remit the entire rental arrears and continue to remit rent
due in future and file an affidavit before the execution of the
court within 20 days from today indicating to surrender the
vacant possession of the premises on or before 6.6.2007.
The R.C.R. is dismissed accordingly.
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, JUDGE
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
csl
RCR36/2007 Page numbers