IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 395 of 2006()
1. VIKAS C.H.,S/O.LATE C.H.CHANDRA BHANU,
... Petitioner
2. LEENA C.H., D/O.LATE C.H.CHANDRA BHANU,
3. DR.VIJIL C.H., S/O.CHANDRA BHANU,
4. C.H. LASITHA JAYADAS,
5. SHEENA C.H., D/O.CHANDRA BHANU,
6. VINOD C.H., S/O.CHANDRA BHANU,
Vs
1. SMT.K.K. VASANTHA, D/O.KORAN VYDIAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NAGARESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :04/12/2006
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------
R.C.R. NO. 395 of 2006 F
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2006.
ORDER
Abdul Gafoor, J.
The tenant faced with concurrent order of eviction under
section 11(3) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
assails that finding in this Revision Petition. The prime
contention urged is that PW1, the son of the land lord for whom
the bonafide requirement was focused by the land lord had gone
back to the Gulf after having earlier produced the photocopy of
the pass port before Court stating that the original has been lost.
But it is a fact that the bonafide requirement urged was in the
year 1998. Even though the pass port was lost at that time it did
not disable PW1 to obtain a fresh one and to go abroad to eke
out his livelihood, until vacant possession of the tenanted
premises is obtained. Having filed a petition it is not incumbent
on any one to remain idle and wait for years together, until the
building is vacated. Therefore, that contention does not have any
relevance.
R.C.R. NO.395/06
:: 2 ::
2. It is further submitted that the very same land lord had
obtained vacant possession of another tenanted building on the
very same reasons. Therefore, there was no reason in raising
the very same need to evict him also. But a reading of the
impugned order will reveal that there was an agreement between
the land lord and other tenants to renew the lease in his favour.
3. We are therefore of the view that there is no illegality in
the concurrent finding of the authorities below to invoke section
20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control), 1965.
Therefore, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. At this
point of time, the review petitioner-tenant submitted that he may
be allowed reasonable time to vacate the building as he was
conducting coconut oil business in the premises and has to find
out some other vacant building. We find that this request is
genuine. Accordingly, we allow 6 months time from today to
vacate the tenant’s premises provided an undertaking in the form
of an affidavit is filed before the execution court undertaking to
R.C.R. NO.395/06
:: 3 ::
vacate the building on or before 04.06.2007 and to pay the entire
arrears of rent already accrued and the rent for the period of six
months allowed hereby.
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR,JUDGE
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
RV
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ.
——————————————-
—
W.P.(C).No.31416 of 2006 M
JUDGMENT
27th November, 2006.
———————————————
—