Granting of time for payment of Rent

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                        PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                                               &
                               THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

                   TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/9TH MAGHA 1934

                                              RCRev..No. 362 of 2012 ()
                                            —————————————
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA.29/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
  AUTHORITY (II ND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE’S COURT. KOZHIKODE) DATED 29-09-2011
                                                               IN
 RCP.49/2009 of THE RENT CONTROL COURTADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I DATED 13-01-2010

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
————————————————————————–

            K.ACHUTHANUNNI,
            S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, KOLATHOTTU HOUSE,
            VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, VALAYANAD.P.O, KOZHIKODE.

            BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN
                          SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
—————————————————————–

            AL UTHYBA INFOTECH,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, C.ABDURAHIMAN,
            AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER MUSALIYAR,
            NEAR COURT ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM
            KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 001.

            R BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ
                              SMT.M.SHAJNA

            THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
            29-01-2013, ALONG WITH RCR. 363/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
            PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

DG

                 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                           & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
         …………………………………………………………..
                    R.C.R.Nos.362 & 363 of 2012
         …………………………………………………………..
            Dated this the 29th day of January, 2013.

                                   O R D E R

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

     These revisions by the tenants are only on the ground of

eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of Act 2 of 1965. Existence of

arrears of rent stood conceded by the tenants even before the

appellate authority. Their ultimate request to the appellate

authority was to order the appeal granting them some time to

make payments invoking sub Section (c) of Section 11(2). This

court has been, apparently, gracious to keep these revisions

here, essentially to give the tenants more time to make the

payments. Though they thus obtained further time until now,

there is serious dispute between the parties as to whether the

entire arrears have been deposited or whether there is

shortage in doing so. We are of the firm view that these are

matters which would be germane for consideration only in an

application under Section 11(2)(c) and this Court need not

R.C.R.Nos.362 & 363 of 2012          2

defer any further, the landlord enjoying the fruits of the order

of eviction, by granting any further time by keeping these

matters at this end.

      2.     For the aforesaid reasons these revisions are

dismissed         without      prejudice      to    the   revision

petitioner’s/tenant’s invoking Section 11(2)(c) within the

statutory period from today.

                                                  Sd/-
                          (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

                                                  Sd/-
                                           (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

                              //True Copy//

                              P.A to Judge
DG

order for retrun of building if not used for self occupation after getting the tenant vacated on the ground of own use

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/11TH MAGHA 1934

RCRev..No. 46 of 2013 ()
————————

AGAINST JUDGMENT IN RCA.24/2011 IN THE COURT OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY,KOTTAYAM

AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.C.(O.P.) NO.6/2010 IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER,
ETTUMANOOR
——————————————–

REVISION PETITIONER(S) :
————————————

GOPALAKRISHNAN ACHARI,
S/O VELAYUDHAN ACHARI,AGED 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MADAPRAYIL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, ETTUMANOOR P.O.,
ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTYAM.

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

RESPONDENT(S):
————————

J.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA,
W/O MOHANAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, ETTUMANOOR P.O.,
ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM 686012.

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

NS

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

& A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

…………………………………………………………..
R.C.R.No. 46 of 2013
…………………………………………………………..
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013.

O R D E R

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

This revision is filed against concurrent decisions dismissing

an application by a tenant under Section 11 (12) of Act 2 of 1965.

2. The landlord applied for an eviction under Sec. 11(3) on

the plea that her son needs the shop room to commence a business

in repairing electronic and electrical gadgets. That was found by

three courts concurrently including this Court in a revision under

Section 20 of the Act. Ultimately, it was argued before this Court in

that revision that since the need for which eviction was sought is

for occupation by the son of the landlady, occupation by any other

person would not be sufficient. This Court held that the said

apprehension is baseless since occupation contemplated under

Sec.11 (12) can only be occupation by the person for whom the

need is projected. This Court made that observation, then, because

it was open to the tenant to make an application under Section 11

(12) if the building is put to any use other than for which the

eviction order was obtained under Section 11(3).

R.C.R.No. 46 of 2013

2

3. The tenant filed the application under Section 11 (12)

pleading that the building is kept vacant. He took out a

commission for local inspection. Rent Control Court required the

Commissioner to collect information from the local people

regarding the question whether the building is put to use. Live

aside the propriety of such a direction to the Commissioner, we find

that the Commissioner came out with the report that while there is

some cobweb and dust in the room, there is a sewing machine,

chairs and other necessary equipments for a tailor and that the

local people had given divergent versions as to whether the

building was put to use or not. The person in occupation, has been

found, concurrently by the courts below, to be the wife of the son of

the landlady. Such occupation has been concurrently held by the

courts below to be occupation by the landlady’s son through his

wife. They are findings on facts on the materials on record. We are

not inclined to take the view that the said finding is perverse,

unreasonable or unavailable on the materials on record, particularly

when, as rightly noted by the courts below, the burden of proof on

an application under Section 11(12) is squarely on the tenant and

that such burden has not been discharged by the revision petitioner

R.C.R.No. 46 of 2013

3

tenant to the satisfaction of the courts below. We, therefore, find

no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders impugned or

with the procedure adopted. This revision, therefore, fails.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.

sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

sd/-
(A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE)