{"id":62809,"date":"2009-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009"},"modified":"2014-01-31T07:42:04","modified_gmt":"2014-01-31T02:12:04","slug":"reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 113 of 2009()\n\n\n1. REETHA GEORGE,AGED 66,W\/O.P.X.GEORGE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. ROY GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS,S\/O.LATE\n3. NEETHA GEORGE, AGED 43 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. BABU PHILIP,AGED 59 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. NINI GEORGE @ MINI IVAN JOSEPH, AGED 39,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :26\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n      PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n\n              ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n                       R.C.R. No. 113 of 2009\n              ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n             Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009\n\n                                  O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The tenants are the revision petitioners.                  They<\/p>\n
challenge in this revision under Section 20, the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction<\/p>\n
passed against them by the Rent Control Court on the grounds of<\/p>\n
additional accommodation under sub-section (8) of Section 11 of<\/p>\n
Act 2 of 1965. The parties will be referred to as the tenant and the<\/p>\n
landlord.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     The landlord filed the RCP seeking eviction of the<\/p>\n
tenant on the ground of additional accommodation under Section<\/p>\n
11(8) and the ground that the tenant has acquired possession of<\/p>\n
another building reasonably sufficient for the tenant’s requirements<\/p>\n
in the same city, town or village under Section 11(4)(iii).<\/p>\n
Eventhough the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section<\/p>\n
11(4)(iii), the appellate authority interfered with that eviction order<\/p>\n
considering an appeal filed by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                 : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
       3.   In this revision filed by the tenant we are concerned<\/p>\n
only with the order of eviction granted under Section 11(8). We,<\/p>\n
therefore, propose to refer to the pleadings of the parties only to<\/p>\n
the extent they pertain to the ground under sub-section (8) of<\/p>\n
Section 11.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   The case of the landlord was that the petition schedule<\/p>\n
premises occupied by the tenant form part of the first floor of a<\/p>\n
three storied building by name Minerva Building. The landlord has<\/p>\n
become the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises by<\/p>\n
virtue of a partition deed executed amongst the heirs of his father,<\/p>\n
who was the original owner. One P.X.George was the original<\/p>\n
tenant and he is no more. After the demise of Sri.P.X.George, the<\/p>\n
first respondent in the RCP, his wife, attorned to the landlord and<\/p>\n
the other respondents in the RCP are children of Sri.P.X.George.<\/p>\n
The tenant is conducting a photo studio by name Vimala Studio in<\/p>\n
the petition schedule premises. The landlord is an active partner<\/p>\n
of Minerva Corporation, which is conducting business in sale of<\/p>\n
automobile spare parts and accessories in the ground floor of<\/p>\n
Minerva Building. The landlord’s family members are the other<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                 : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
partners of the Minerva Corporation. Due to the advent of new<\/p>\n
generation vehicles, the landlord’s business in the ground floor of<\/p>\n
the building is not lucrative enough. Hence, the landlord and the<\/p>\n
other partners of the Minerva Corporation have decided to expand<\/p>\n
their business and for that purpose, additional area is required for<\/p>\n
stocking the articles. The landlord bonafide needs the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building for additional accommodation. The landlord has<\/p>\n
no other vacant space available for accomplishing his need for<\/p>\n
additional accommodation.       The 4th respondent in the RCP<\/p>\n
remained ex parte. The other respondents filed a joint statement<\/p>\n
of objections. It was admitted that the petition schedule building<\/p>\n
was owned by the landlord’s father. It was also admitted that the<\/p>\n
building was taken on lease in the year 1963 by Sri.P.X.George<\/p>\n
and that upon demise of Sri.P.X.George, his leasehold rights over<\/p>\n
the building devolved upon the respondents in the RCP.         The<\/p>\n
photo studio business is being conducted by respondents 1 and 2<\/p>\n
in the RCP. Answering the need projected by the landlord, it is<\/p>\n
contended that what is proposed to be stocked is spare parts of<\/p>\n
new generation vehicles, which are available only with the<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                  : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
manufacturers at the authorised service centres. Accordingly, it is<\/p>\n
contended that there is no necessity for expansion of the business<\/p>\n
of the landlord. The landlord’s need for additional accommodation<\/p>\n
was disputed. It was contended that the landlord is having his<\/p>\n
own vacant rooms in the same building with all facilities and hence<\/p>\n
there is no necessity to evict the tenant for expansion of the<\/p>\n
business. It was also contended in the context of the proviso to<\/p>\n
sub-section (10) of Section 11 that the hardship, which will be<\/p>\n
occasioned to the tenant due to the order of eviction, will be heavy<\/p>\n
in comparison to the advantages that the landlord may get.<\/p>\n
      5.    The Rent Control Court formulated the requisite points<\/p>\n
for consideration and at trial, the evidence in the case consisted of<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A10, B1 to B10 series, C1 Commission report, PW1,<\/p>\n
the landlord and RW1, the second respondent in the RCP and<\/p>\n
RW2, the Advocate Commissioner who submitted Ext.C1. The<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court, on evaluating the evidence, came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the petition schedule building is required bonafide<\/p>\n
by the landlord for additional accommodation. It was also found<\/p>\n
that the advantages, which will be gained by the landlord due to<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
eviction, will outweigh the hardship which may be sustained by the<\/p>\n
tenant due to the order of eviction.     That court also found as<\/p>\n
already stated that an order of eviction is liable to be passed<\/p>\n
against the tenant on the ground under Clause (iii) of sub-section<\/p>\n
(4) of Section 11 also.      Accordingly, the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
allowed the petition on both grounds. The 4th respondent in the<\/p>\n
RCP, Smt.Mini George, daughter of the first respondent in the<\/p>\n
RCP and sister of the other respondents in the RCP, filed RCA<\/p>\n
No.82\/2008 and respondents 1 to 3 in the RCP filed RCA<\/p>\n
No.8\/2007 against the order of the Rent Control Court. The Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appellate Authority would, by the impugned common<\/p>\n
judgment, dismiss RCA No.82\/2008 and allow RCA No.8\/2007 in<\/p>\n
part to the extent of setting aside the order of eviction passed<\/p>\n
under Clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 11. The appellate<\/p>\n
authority thus confirmed the order of eviction, which was passed<\/p>\n
by the Rent Control Court on the ground of additional<\/p>\n
accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    This revision under Section 20 is filed by the tenants<\/p>\n
(respondents 1 to 3 in the RCP) urging various grounds,<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
challenging the order of eviction passed under sub-section (8) of<\/p>\n
Section 11.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    We      have      heard      the       submissions     of<\/p>\n
Sri.O.Ramachandran Nambiar, learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners, and also those of Sri.Kurian George Kannamthanam,<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel for the respondents.             After hearing<\/p>\n
Sri.Ramachandran Nambiar in full and Sri.Kurian George<\/p>\n
Kannamthanam in part, we noticed that a point which was<\/p>\n
seriously urged before us by Mr.Nambiar was that the northern<\/p>\n
portion of the second floor of the Minerva building was under the<\/p>\n
occupation of the landlord and that the non-occupation of such<\/p>\n
vacant premises was a circumstance indicative of absence of<\/p>\n
bonafides. We, therefore, on 23-11-2009, appointed Smt.Nisha<\/p>\n
John as Advocate Commissioner for conduct of local inspection by<\/p>\n
passing the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
                ” Heard Shri.O.Ramachandran Nambiar,<\/p>\n
          learned counsel for the revision petitioners in full<\/p>\n
          and Shri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned<\/p>\n
          counsel for the respondents in part.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                2.     One of the issues which seriously<\/p>\n
          came up, is whether the northern portion of the<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                  : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
          second floor of the larger building of which the<\/p>\n
          petition schedule building is a part (the portion<\/p>\n
          shown to the northern side of the portion occupied<\/p>\n
          by Peninsular Capital Market, Mony & S. Madhu<\/p>\n
          and Associates) is under the vacant possession of<\/p>\n
          the landlord? The Commissioner in Ext.C1 report<\/p>\n
          in the last sentence of paragraph No:2 on page<\/p>\n
          No:2 seems to indicate that the above portion is<\/p>\n
          permanently closed.         According to Shri.O.\n<\/p>\n
          Ramachandran Nambiar, the said portion is under<\/p>\n
          the vacant possession of the landlord while<\/p>\n
          according to Shri.Kurian George Kannanthanam<\/p>\n
          the said portion is already let out by the landlord<\/p>\n
          and at any rate is not under the vacant possession<\/p>\n
          of anybody.\n<\/p>\n
                 3.   We feel that it is necessary that an<\/p>\n
          immediate local inspection of the second floor<\/p>\n
          portion of the building is conducted by an<\/p>\n
          Advocate Commissioner. Adv. Smt.Nisha John of<\/p>\n
          this Court be appointed as Commissioner. She will<\/p>\n
          conduct an immediate local inspection today itself<\/p>\n
          and report on the following matters:-\n<\/p>\n
                 i) Whether any portion in the second floor<\/p>\n
          of the three storied building of which the petition<\/p>\n
          schedule building is a part (under the ownership of<\/p>\n
          the petitioners in the RCP) is a part, remaining<\/p>\n
          vacant?\n<\/p>\n
                 4. The Commissioner is directed to identify<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                  : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
           the building with reference to the rough sketch<\/p>\n
           submitted by the earlier Commissioner along with<\/p>\n
           Ext. C1 report. The remuneration payable to the<\/p>\n
           Commissioner is fixed at Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten<\/p>\n
           thousand only), which will be paid by the<\/p>\n
           respondents in the R.C.R to the Commissioner<\/p>\n
           immediately  by cash, against      receipt. The<\/p>\n
           Commissioner will conduct inspection and submit<\/p>\n
           report at the earliest and at any rate by<\/p>\n
           25.11.2009.”\n<\/p>\n
      8.    The Advocate Commissioner conducted inspection and<\/p>\n
filed detailed report and sketch. We marked the same as Ext.C2<\/p>\n
and C2 will form part of the records in the RCP. It will be noticed<\/p>\n
immediately that Ext.C2 is very clearly in favour of the landlord and<\/p>\n
C2 can be relied on safely to come to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/landlord does not have possession of any other building<\/p>\n
by which he can accomplish his projected need of additional<\/p>\n
accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    It was very extensive submission which was addressed<\/p>\n
before us by the learned counsel for the parties, namely<\/p>\n
Sri.O.Ramachandran Nambiar, Advocate and Sri.Kurian George<\/p>\n
Kannamthanam, senior Advocate. Mr.Nambiar submitted that the<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                 : 9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
finding of the authorities below that the landlord has got bonafide<\/p>\n
need for starting the business of new generation car spare parts<\/p>\n
has been entered without considering crucial evidence on record.<\/p>\n
The appreciation of the evidence on record by the courts below,<\/p>\n
according to the learned counsel, was grossly erroneous.<\/p>\n
Production of price list of new generation cars’ spare parts by the<\/p>\n
landlord ought not have been given much importance, since it is a<\/p>\n
matter of common knowledge that anybody could get price list of<\/p>\n
any commodities from the dealers or manufacturers of a product.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, it was noticed by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner that the landlord was stocking old unserviceable<\/p>\n
spare parts in the vacant rooms belonging to the landlord. It is the<\/p>\n
case of the tenant that old unserviceable spare parts of<\/p>\n
Ambassador and Fiat cars, which cannot be sold at all, are all<\/p>\n
dumped in the rooms, just before the visit by the Commissioner for<\/p>\n
the purpose of creating artificial evidence for showing that all the<\/p>\n
rooms were full of goods and there is no vacant space to stock the<\/p>\n
spare parts of new generation cars. This vital aspect of the matter<\/p>\n
was not noticed by the courts below. According to the learned<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                  : 10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel, whether there is shortage for space for the landlord to<\/p>\n
stock his goods is a matter which can be proved by producing<\/p>\n
documents including stock registers. The non-production of stock<\/p>\n
registers was a material circumstance which will justify drawal of<\/p>\n
adverse inference against the landlord.            Mr.Nambiar also<\/p>\n
submitted that the authorities below went wrong in finding that the<\/p>\n
question of comparative advantage and hardship is to be<\/p>\n
answered in favour of the landlord.        According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel, these findings are the result of misreading of evidence.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, the appellate authority, having<\/p>\n
found that the eviction ground under Section 11(4)(iii) (tenant<\/p>\n
having other building in possession reasonably sufficient for the<\/p>\n
tenant’s requirements) is liable to be vacated ought not have relied<\/p>\n
on the availability of that building with the tenant for defeating the<\/p>\n
tenant’s case for protection of the proviso to sub-section (10) of<\/p>\n
Section 11. Mr.Nambiar drew our attention to the pleadings in the<\/p>\n
case and also to the evidence. Mr.Nambiar placed reliance on a<\/p>\n
large number of decisions for the various propositions canvassed<\/p>\n
by him. Inter alia, he relied on the judgments of this Court in<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                : 11 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Bonny Vs. Koshy P.John [2005 (1) KLT 114], Lakshmi Vs.<\/p>\n
Labbah Kunju Ameer Hamsa [2005 (3) KLT 627], Simon Vs.<\/p>\n
Rappai [2008 (3) KLT 121], Muhammed Vs. Pathummakutty<\/p>\n
Umma     [1992    (2)   KLT   736]    and    Purushothaman        Vs.<\/p>\n
Radhakrishnan [2004 (3) KLT 121] in support of his argument<\/p>\n
that the decisions of the authorities below are vitiated to the extent<\/p>\n
of warranting invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20<\/p>\n
and also that the revisional jurisdiction is wide enough to justify<\/p>\n
interference when there is misreading of evidence by the courts<\/p>\n
below.\n<\/p>\n
      10.  Mr.Nambiar relied on the judgments of this Court in<\/p>\n
Lekshmana Naikan Vs. Gopalakrishna Pillai [1981 KLT 167],<\/p>\n
Joseph Vs. Rent Controller [2001 (2) KLT 538], Pakran Vs.<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman Nambiar [2004 (1) KLT 824] authored by one among<\/p>\n
us (PCK(J)) and the judgment in Ratnakaran Vs. Rosy [2004 (3)<\/p>\n
KLT 154] to argue that the eviction ground under sub-section (8)<\/p>\n
of Section 11 is not made out in this case and that, at any rate,<\/p>\n
order cannot be passed in view of the proviso to sub-section (10)<\/p>\n
of Section 11. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                : 12 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Haji<\/p>\n
Latif and others [AIR 1968 SC 1413], Shakir Hussain Vs.<\/p>\n
Administrator, Nagar Palika, Mandsaur [AIR 1999 SC 2872] and<\/p>\n
in Patel Naranbhai Marghabhai and others Vs. Deceased<\/p>\n
Dhulabhai Galbabhai and others [AIR 1992 SC 2009] to support<\/p>\n
the argument that adverse inferences are to be drawn when the<\/p>\n
best evidence for proving a particular aspect is not produced.<\/p>\n
      11.  All the submissions of Mr.Nambiar were stiffly resisted<\/p>\n
by Sri.Kurian George Kannamthanam, learned senior counsel for<\/p>\n
the landlord. He submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under<\/p>\n
Section 20 is revisional in nature and this Court is not expected to<\/p>\n
re-appraise the evidence, when the findings entered by the<\/p>\n
statutory authorities are founded on evidence on record. He also<\/p>\n
submitted that the standards necessary for establishing bonafides<\/p>\n
in the context of need for additional accommodation are not so<\/p>\n
rigorous as is expected in a case for need for own occupation<\/p>\n
under sub-section (3) of Section 11.        He would support the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court on the various reasons stated in the above<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                    : 13 :<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
      12.   We      have   very     anxiously   considered    the  rival<\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the bar. We have made a quick glance<\/p>\n
at those items on evidence to which our attention was drawn by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. We have gone<\/p>\n
through the pleadings raised by the parties.<\/p>\n
      13.   We have kept in mind the ratio emerging from the<\/p>\n
various decisions cited before us by the counsel on either sides,<\/p>\n
particularly Sri.Ramachandran Nambiar, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
      14.   It cannot be in dispute that the jurisdiction of this Court<\/p>\n
under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is revisional in nature. This<\/p>\n
Court does not sit in appeal over the judgment of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final<\/p>\n
court on facts. This Court’s concern under Section 20 is only to<\/p>\n
find out whether the judgment of the appellate authority is vitiated<\/p>\n
by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, warranting invocation of<\/p>\n
the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. The word propriety<\/p>\n
appearing in Section 20 will certainly show that the scope of the<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                 : 14 :<\/span><\/p>\n
jurisdiction under Section 20 is wider than the civil revisional<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure, nevertheless the jurisdiction is revisional in<\/p>\n
nature. This Court in revision is not expected to re-appreciate the<\/p>\n
evidence and substitute factual conclusions for the conclusions<\/p>\n
arrived at by the statutory authorities, especially when those<\/p>\n
conclusions are founded on evidence.         Despite the revisional<\/p>\n
nature of the jurisdiction, being impressed by the submission of<\/p>\n
Mr.Nambiar that the landlord is having vacant possession of<\/p>\n
premises belonging to him at his disposal, we deputed a<\/p>\n
Commissioner for verification. The Commissioner has reported<\/p>\n
that the landlord does not have vacant possession of any area in<\/p>\n
the larger building by name Minerva building, the only commercial<\/p>\n
building belonging to the landlord as per the evidence. In fact, the<\/p>\n
first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11, which says that even<\/p>\n
though the need of the landlord under sub-section (3) of Section<\/p>\n
11 is found to be bonafide, the RCP shall be rejected, if the<\/p>\n
landlord is in possession of vacant building belonging to him in the<\/p>\n
absence of special reasons, does not apply to need for additional<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                : 15 :<\/span><\/p>\n
accommodation under sub-section (8) of Section 11. However, we<\/p>\n
thought that the non-user of the vacant buildings, if actually<\/p>\n
available with the landlord, can be a circumstance telling upon the<\/p>\n
bonafides of the need for additional accommodation. Now that the<\/p>\n
Commission report Ext.C2 is on record, we have no difficulty in<\/p>\n
endorsing the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court and the appellate authority on appreciating the evidence that<\/p>\n
came on record that          the landlord’s need for additional<\/p>\n
accommodation for the purpose of expanding his business by<\/p>\n
selling spare parts of new generation automobile spare parts is a<\/p>\n
bonafide one.\n<\/p>\n
      15.  We will notice in this context that it is trite by the<\/p>\n
decision of this Court that the standards for establishing bonafides<\/p>\n
in a case for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation<\/p>\n
are more liberal than the standards for establishing bonafides in<\/p>\n
case for own occupation under sub-section (3) of Section 11. This<\/p>\n
Court has held that additional accommodation can be allowed<\/p>\n
even when the same amounts to a luxury provided it is found that<\/p>\n
in seeking additional accommodation the landlord is not actuated<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                               : 16 :<\/span><\/p>\n
by any oblique motives.     We do not find any oblique motives<\/p>\n
established by the revision petitioners, for the landlord in seeking<\/p>\n
to evict them.\n<\/p>\n
      16.   Now the only question which remains to be considered<\/p>\n
is whether the advantages, which will enure the landlord by getting<\/p>\n
eviction, will outweigh the hardships, which will be sustained by<\/p>\n
the tenant by virtue of the order of eviction passed against him.<\/p>\n
Even according to the tenants, the landlords have been<\/p>\n
successfully carrying on business in automobile spare parts mostly<\/p>\n
of old type vehicles like Ambassador and Fiat etc. for decades.<\/p>\n
These are the times of new generation vehicles and the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the landlord that in order that the business flourishes<\/p>\n
in the modern days, spare parts of such new generation vehicles<\/p>\n
also are to be stored inspired the Rent Control Court and the<\/p>\n
appellate authority. It has come out in evidence that the landlord<\/p>\n
will be able to gain much more profits by expanding their business<\/p>\n
in the manner proposed. Thus, it cannot be in dispute that the<\/p>\n
advantages to be gained by the landlord due to the order of<\/p>\n
eviction will be considerable.   Now, coming to the question of<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                : 17 :<\/span><\/p>\n
hardship to be sustained by the tenant; though the eviction order<\/p>\n
under Section 11(4)(iii) was declined by the appellate authority,<\/p>\n
the fact remains that the revision petitioners are having another<\/p>\n
place of business where from also they should be gaining income.<\/p>\n
No convincing evidence has been adduced by the tenant to show<\/p>\n
that other buildings are not available in the locality for them to shift<\/p>\n
their business carried on in the petition schedule premises. It is a<\/p>\n
photo studio which is being conducted by them in the petition<\/p>\n
schedule premises. Having regard to the reputation, which the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners have gained in photography, a portion of their<\/p>\n
income will be from outdoor business that they conduct.            The<\/p>\n
finding of the authorities below that the hardship to be sustained<\/p>\n
by the tenant will not outweigh the advantages that the landlord<\/p>\n
may get is again founded on evidence. That being so, we do not<\/p>\n
find any warrant for interference under Section 20.<\/p>\n
      17.   The result of the above discussion is that the RCR fails<\/p>\n
and will stand dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that<\/p>\n
the revision petitioners have been carrying on photo studio in the<\/p>\n
petition schedule premises for quite a long period of time, there<\/p>\n
RCR 113\/2009
\n                                : 18 :<\/span><\/p>\n
will be a direction to the execution court not to order and effect<\/p>\n
delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the<\/p>\n
respondents till 31-03-2010 subject to the following conditions:-<\/p>\n
      (i)  The revision petitioners shall discharge arrears of rent,<\/p>\n
if any, within one month from today and shall pay occupational<\/p>\n
charges at the current rent rate as and when the same falls due till<\/p>\n
the day they surrender the building to the landlord.<\/p>\n
      (ii) The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit within two<\/p>\n
months before the execution court undertaking to give peaceful<\/p>\n
surrender of the building to the respondents on or before 31-10-<\/p>\n
2010. It is made clear that the revision petitioners will be entitled<\/p>\n
to the benefit of time granted only if an affidavit is filed on time.<\/p>\n
                                   (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                 (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
aks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 113 of 2009() 1. REETHA GEORGE,AGED 66,W\/O.P.X.GEORGE … Petitioner 2. ROY GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS,S\/O.LATE 3. NEETHA GEORGE, AGED 43 YEARS, Vs 1. BABU PHILIP,AGED 59 YEARS, … Respondent 2. NINI GEORGE @ MINI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nReetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-31T02:12:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-31T02:12:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3355,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-31T02:12:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-31T02:12:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-31T02:12:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009"},"wordCount":3355,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009","name":"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-31T02:12:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reetha-george-vs-babu-philip-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reetha George vs Babu Philip on 26 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}