P.V.Sayid Muhammed vs P.V.Sayid Muhammed
2021 Latest Caselaw 6590 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                              &

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    RCRev..No.445 OF 2019

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 121/2013 DATED       29-06-2019   OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - IV, THALASSERY.

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 301/2012 DATED 21-06-2013 OF RENT
CONTROL COURT, (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF), KANNUR.


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT     :

            P.V.SAYID MUHAMMED, S/O.SAYID AMEER,
            AGED 59 YEARS, THREE LINE LORRY TRANSPORTING
            AGENCY, BUILDING NO. ELP-III-511-C,
            ELAYAVOOR AMSOM MUNDAYAD DESOM,
            ELAYAVOOR PANCHAYATH, KANNUR.

            BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER     :

            K.SATHI, D/O. KUNHIKANNAN,
            AGED 68 YEARS, SATHI NILAYAM,
            NEAR KOTTAIKAVU, P.O KOTTALI,
            PUZHATHI AMSOM, KOTTALI DESOM,
            KANNUR - 670 005.

            R1 BY ADV. P.SAJU (CAVEATOR).



     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
 24.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.C.R No.445 of 2019                   2




                       A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J J.
                       --------------------------------------
                                R.C.R No.445 of 2019
                       --------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 24th day of February, 2021


                                      ORDER

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

Revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P No.301 of 2012 on the

file of the Rent Controller (Principal Munsiff), Kannur. The above rent

control petition was filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the

Revision Petitioner from the petition schedule building under Section

11 (3) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (in short 'the

Act').

2. Case of the respondent/landlord is that she wants the petition

schedule building for the bona fide need to start a stationery shop in the

petition schedule building. The petitioner/tenant filed a counter and

contested the case raising different contentions.

3. To substantiate the case, the respondent/landlord was

examined as PW1 and the Revision petitioner/tenant was examined as

RW1. After going through the evidence and documents, the Rent Controller

found that the respondent/landlord is entitled to an order of eviction under

Section 11 (3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Controller allowed the

petition.

4. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the Revision petitioner filed

an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Additional District

Judge-IV, Thalassery. The Appellate Authority, after considering the entire

oral and documentary evidence, found that there is nothing to interfere

with the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and accordingly

dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the

respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the eviction

order passed by the lower authorities is unsustainable and without

considering the evidence adduced by the Revision Petitioner. Learned

counsel further submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with

the orders passed by the lower authorities, sufficient time may be granted

for vacating the petition schedule room. He requested time till

31-12-2021. The respondent/Landlord submitted that there is nothing to

interfere with the order of eviction passed by the Rent controller which is

confirmed by the appellate authority. The counsel seriously opposed the

prayer to grant time till 31-12-2021.

7. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence

available in this case we see no reason to interfere with the eviction orders

passed by the lower authorities. This is a revision filed under section 20 of

the Act. Jurisdiction of this court to interfere with the concurrent finding of

fact by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority is limited. We are

also not in a position to grant time to the tenant till 31.12.2021. The Rent

control petition was filed in 2012 and now about 9 years elapsed after

filing the same. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,

we find that the petitioner can be given seven months to vacate the petition

schedule room.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed granting 7

months to the Revision Petitioner for vacating the petition schedule

building on the following conditions :

1. Revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the Rent

Controller (Principal Munsiff), Kannur within two weeks from today,

unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule room within

seven months from today.

2. He shall clear off all the admitted arrears of rent and shall

continue to pay the agreed rent per month as compensation until he

vacates the petition schedule room.

3. In case any of the above conditions are violated by the revision

petitioner, the respondent is free to execute the order of eviction.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

amk