IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
RCRev..No.174 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09-06-2020 IN RCA 20/2018 &
25/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - V, PALAKKAD.
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-03-2018 IN RCP 7/2011 OF MUNSIFF
COURT, ALATHUR.
PETITIONER IN R.C.R/APPELLANT IN RCA/RESPONDENT IN R.C.P :
SASIDHARAN, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. VELU, CHUNGHATHODIYIL HOUSE,
KANNAMBRA AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK,
VADAKKENCHERY - PALAKKAD 678 686.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN,
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SMT.B.ANUSREE
SMT.MEERA P.
RESPONDENT IN R.C.R/RESPONDENT R.C.A/PETITIONER IN R.C.P :
THAHIRA BHANU, AGED 44 YEARS,
W/O. LATE KIDHER MUHAMMED, KHANI MANZIL,
AAAMAKULAM, VADAKKENCHERY AMSOM AND DESOM
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 686.
R1 BY ADV. S.VINOD BHAT(CAVEATOR)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.C.R No.174 OF 2020 2
A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J J.
--------------------------------------
R.C.R No.174 OF 2020
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2021
ORDER
A.HARIPRASAD, J Heard the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Revision petitioner is the tenant under the respondent in respect of the petition schedule shop room. Claiming eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), the respondent filed R.C.P No.7 of 2011 before the Rent Control Court, Alathur. After a full fledged trial, the Rent Control Court allowed eviction under Section 11(3) and denied the claim under Sections 11(2)(b) of the Act.
R.C.R No.174 OF 2020 3
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Court, both the tenant and the landlord went up in separate appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad as R.C.A Nos.20 and 25 of 2018. Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the tenant has come up in revision before us.
4. Case of the revision petitioner is that the bona fide need set up by the respondent is only a rouse to evict him from the building. It is also contended that the respondent had entered into an agreement to sell the property with one Surendran, who is the brother of the revision petitioner. To enforce that agreement, a suit was filed by Surendran. When that was dismissed by the trial court, the matter was taken up in appeal to this Court and it is now pending. In addition to that, the revision petitioner has a case that after selling the property, the respondent's husband had received Rs.3,58,000/- from the revision petitioner suppressing the factum of assignment in favour of the respondent. It was promised by him at that R.C.R No.174 OF 2020 4 time that the revision petitioner would not be evicted from the tenanted premises till the end of 2015. In violation of the agreement, the eviction petition was filed in 2011 prematurely.
5. In respect of this case, the respondent would contend that her husband has not entered into any agreement with the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the alleged agreement was executed at a time when her husband had no title over the property. Moreover, there is a concurrent finding by the authorities below that Ext.B2 agreement relied on by the revision petitioner was not proved. However, no reliance was placed by the authorities on that document. Only question arising for consideration in this revision petition is whether the claim of bona fide need decided by the authorities, in favour of the respondent, is legally sustainable ?
6. Having regard to the contentions raised by the parties and the appreciation of evidence, we find that the concurrent finding by the authorities is in no manner perverse. Therefore, we find no illegality or R.C.R No.174 OF 2020 5 irregularity in the proceedings. We are of the view that interference is not required in this matter. However, considering the fact that the revision petitioner/tenant is occupying the building for a considerable length of time, we deem it apposite to grant him a reasonable time to vacate the premises.
7. Learned Senior counsel submitted that at least a year's time may be granted so that he can find out a suitable accommodation in the locality. Having regard to the submission, we dispose of the revision petition in the following manner :
There is no merit in the revision petition and therefore, confirming the eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Act passed by the authorities, we dismiss the revision petition. However, the revision petitioner/tenant shall be allowed to remain in the tenanted premises on fulfilling the following conditions :
1. Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent R.C.R No.174 OF 2020 6 Control Court, Alathur within a period of four weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31-12-2021.
2. He shall regularly pay damages for use and occupation of the building to a tune of monthly rent that he is now paying.
3. In case any of the above conditions is breached by the revision petitioner, the execution court is free to execute the order of eviction without regard to the stipulation of time.
4. In case, the revision petitioner files an affidavit unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises and if he fails to vacate, the respondent is free to move this Court under the Contempt of Court Act also. All pending interlocutory application will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE amk