Partly allowed

Choyyil Kuruppathody Muhammedkutty v. Pandikasala Aboobacker Haji Alias Pandikashala Aboobacker Siddique

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021RCRev./181/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed revisions challenging eviction orders under tenancy laws. Court held the trial courts did not re-appreciate evidence illegally. Granted tenant ten months to vacate due to COVID-19, conditioned on clearing arrears and surrendering without third-party possession.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions dismissed, but ten months time granted for vacant possession subject to depositing arrears and undertaking against third-party possession.

Choyyil Kuruppathody Muhammedkutty Vs Pandikasala… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1943

¶8

RCREV. NO. 180 OF 2021

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN R.C.A.NO.13 OF 2019 DATED 16.12.2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), KOZHIKODE AND AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 IN R.C.P.NO.116 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S

¶10

COURT-II), KOZHIKODE

¶11

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶12

CHOYYIL KURUPPATHODY MUHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. ALASSANKUTTY, C. K. VILLA, RAMANATTUKARA P. O., VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 633. BY ADVS. K.M.FIROZ M.SHAJNA

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

PANDIKASALA ANWAR SADATH AGED 39 YEARS S/O.LATE MOYINKUTTY HAJI, RESIDING AT PANDIKASALA HOUSE, VELIPROM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 633. BY ADV R.RAMADAS

¶15

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶23

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶24

1943

¶25

RCREV. NO. 181 OF 2021

¶26

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN R.C.A.NO.14 OF 2019 DATED

¶27

16.12.2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), KOZHIKODE AND AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 IN R.C.P.NO.117 OF 2016 ON THE

¶28

FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S

¶29

COURT-II), KOZHIKODE

¶30

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶31

CHOYYIL KURUPPATHODY MUHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. ALASSANKUTTY, C.K VILLA, RAMANATUKARA P.O, VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 633 BY ADVS. K.M.FIROZ M.SHAJNA

¶32

RESPONDENTS:

¶33

PANDIKASALA ABOOBACKER HAJI ALIAS PANDIKASHALA ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE

¶34

S/O. LATE MOYINKUTTY HAJI, RESIDING AT RAHIYANA MANZIL, RAMANATTUKARA, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KADANCHIRA SHAMIRA, AGED 35, D/O. MOIDEENKUTTY RESIDING AT RAHIYANA MANZIL, RAMANATTUKARA, VELIPROM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 633

¶35

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶36

FOLLOWING:

¶37

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶41

The petitioner in R.C.Rev.Nos.180 and 181 of 2021 is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.Nos.116 and 117 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff Court-II), Kozhikode, a petition filed by the respondent herein-landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking an order for the eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room. Before the Rent Control Court, R.C.P.No.116 of 2016 was tried along with a connected matter, i.e., R.C.P.No.117 of 2016, relating to the adjacent shop room, which is owned by the brother of the landlord in R.C.P.No.116 of 2016. The bona fide need projected in the rent control petitions was that Smt.Rejina, the wife of the landlord in R.C.P.No.116 of 2016 and Smt.Shamira, wife of the landlord in R.C.P.No.117 of 2016, to conduct business of churidar materials, kids wear, ready-made garments, etc. in the petition schedule shop rooms. They are not in possession of any other rooms for conducting the said business and as such they are depending

¶42

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶43

¶44

on the landlords for occupation of the petition schedule shop rooms for conducting the said business.

¶45

Before the Rent Control Court, the tenant entered appearance and opposed the order of eviction sought for, by filing counter affidavit. On the side of the landlords, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the tenant, RW1 was examined and Exts.B1, B3 to B6 were marked. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Rent Control Court arrived at a conclusion that the need projected in the Rent Control Petitions, seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, is bona fide; the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has no application; and the tenant is not entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court passed a common order for eviction in R.C.P.Nos.116 and 117 of 2016, thereby directing the tenant to vacate the petition schedule shop rooms within 60 days from the date of that order.

¶46

Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 30.11.2018 for eviction granted by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.Nos.116 and 117 of 2016, the tenant preferred R.C.A.

¶47

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶48

¶49

Nos.13 and 14 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (First Additional District Judge), Kozhikode. Before the Appellate Authority, both the matters were heard jointly. By the judgment dated 16.12.2020, the Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals, thereby confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitionertenant is before this Court in these Rent Control Revisions.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord in the respective Rent Control Revisions.

¶51

The issue that arises for consideration in these Rent

¶52

Control Revisions is as to whether the common judgment dated 16.12.2020 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.Nos.13 and 14 of 2019 and the common order dated 30.11.2018 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.Nos.116 and 117 of 2016 warrant interference, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

¶53

Section 11 of the of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and

¶54

Rent Control) Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section

¶55

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶56

¶57

11(1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 11(2)(b) of the Act deals with eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. As per Section 11(2)(b), if the Rent Control Court, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, it shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, and if it is not satisfied it shall make an order rejecting the application thereof by him. As per the proviso to Section 11(2) (b), an application under this sub-section shall be made only if the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the default and the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at six per cent per

¶58

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶59

¶60

annum and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or of the refusal thereof. As per Section 11(2)(c), the order of the Rent Control Court directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building shall not be executed before the expiry of one month from the date of such order or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow; and if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings within the said period of one month or such further period, as the case may be, it shall vacate that order.

¶61

In paragraph 5 of the counter statement, the tenant has admitted that he has not paid rent after February 2015. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears, in spite of demand by the landlords. Therefore, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction of the tenant under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, giving liberty to the tenant to apply for an order vacating the order of eviction, in the event of his compliance under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. The said finding of the Rent Control Court stands affirmed by the Rent

¶62

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶63

¶64

Control Appellate Authority, in the common judgment dated 16.12.2020. The finding of the courts below on the ground of eviction sought for under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act.

¶65

As per Section 11(3) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so. As per the second proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or

¶66

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶67

¶68

business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business.

¶69

In Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust [(2005) 2 SCC 476] the Apex Court reiterated that, as laid down in Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. As reiterated in

¶70

Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705] bona fide

¶71

requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or

¶72

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶73

¶74

fanciful desire. The bona fide requirement is in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.

¶75

10. In Ammu v. Nafeesa [2015 (5) KHC 718] a Division Bench of this Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that the need put forward by the landlord has to be examined on the presumption that the same is a genuine one, in the absence of any materials to the contra .

¶76

The bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition is substantiated by the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 2. PW1 is the wife of the landlord in R.C.P.No.116 of 2016 and PW2 is the wife of the landlord in R.C.P.No.117 of 2016. The oral testimony of PWs.1 and 2 are in support of the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petitions that they intend to start a joint venture for sale churidar materials, ready made garments, etc. in the petition schedule shop rooms. Though, before the Rent Control Court, the tenant contended that the need projected is only a ruse for eviction, nothing could be brought out in the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 to discredit their version. The tenant could not produce any

¶77

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶78

¶79

evidence to doubt the bona fides of the need projected by the landlords. After considering the evidence on record the Rent Control Court found no reason to disbelieve the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petitions. Accordingly, that point was answered in favour of the landlords. The finding of the Rent Control Court on that point is affirmed in the judgment of the Appellate Authority, after properly appreciating the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 2.

¶80

The Appellate Authority noticed that when the tenant was examined as RW1, he has admitted that many Muslim ladies are running shops near the petition schedule shop rooms. In the impugned judgment the Appellate Authority held that PWs.1 and 2 are depending on the landlords for the petition schedule shop rooms for running their own business and they got their own working capital to run that business. The finding of the courts below that the need projected in the Rent Control Petitions for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interferene in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the

¶81

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶82

¶83

Act.

¶84

As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so.

¶85

The initial burden is on the tenant to prove that the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village, in order to attract the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Only when the tenant succeeds in proving the same, the landlord has to show special reasons for not occupying that building.

¶86

In the instant case, the Rent Control Court noticed that no materials were brought on record by the tenant to show that the landlords have any other vacant building in their possession and as such, the claim for eviction is not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority noticed that, the tenant who was examined as RW1, has no case that other rooms are available in the ground floor

¶87

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶88

¶89

of the building which has got similar conveniences, area and road frontage like the petition schedule shop rooms, for PWs 1 and 2 to conduct the proposed business in churidar materails, ready-made garments, etc. Therefore, the Appellate Authority found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Rent Control Court on the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The finding of the courts below on this point is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.

¶90

16. As per the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is

¶91

no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business.

¶92

17. I n Ammeer Hamsa v. Ramabhadran and

¶93

another [2019 (2) KHC 465] a Division Bench of this Court held that, it is trite law that both limbs under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and

¶94

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶95

¶96

Rent Control) Act are conjunctive and the burden of proof is on the tenant. Thus, the legal position has been settled by a long line of decisions and the courts below have rightly placed reliance upon those decisions. Vide: Narayanan Nair v. Pachumma [1980 KLT 430] , Prasannan v. Haris [2005 (2) KLT 365] , Vineethan v. Fathima and others [2016 (1) KHC 631] . In view of the legal position well settled by the aforesaid decisions, the landlord is not required to plead or prove other sources of income of the tenant. That apart, income is a fact which remains exclusively in the knowledge of each person only and another person cannot adduce evidence to prove income. Merely on the reason that the landlord has stated that the tenant has other sources of income and he is not mainly depending upon the income from the business carried on in the tenanted premises, for his livelihood and he failed to prove so, the tenant cannot escape from the burden of proof cast on him under the first limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Where the statutory provision itself explicitly imposes the burden of proof on a party to the lis, there cannot be any variation whatever be the pleadings of the

¶97

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶98

¶99

other party in that respect. The second proviso to Section 11(3) is an exception to the principal provision, granting protection to the tenant. When the second proviso itself imposes the burden of proof on the tenant, the question whether the landlord has pleaded or proved the facts constituting the said proviso is insignificant and irrelevant. Even if the landlord pleaded so, the burden of proof will not be shifted to him. Since the second proviso to Section 11(3) is an exception to the principal provision, which would dis-entitle the landlord to get the order of eviction under Section 11(3), the burden of proof, under the said proviso is always on the tenant and unless the burden of proof under the second proviso is discharged satisfactorily, the tenant is not entitled to get protection under the said proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act .

¶100

18. The landlords have specifically pleaded in the Rent Control Petitions that there are vacant shop rooms available in the very same locality for the tenant to shift his business conducted in the petition schedule shop rooms. The door numbers of the vacant shop rooms available in the locality were also furnished. PWs 1 and 2 have filed proof affidavit

¶101

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶102

¶103

reiterating the averments in the rent control petitions, regarding the availability of vacant shop rooms in the locality. The tenant has not chosen to take out a Commission to prove the contrary, in order to discharge his burden under the first limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. He has also failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the tenant is not entitled to claim protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The finding of the courts below on that point is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.

¶104

19. Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with revision. As per sub-section (1) of Section 20, in cases, where the appellate authority empowered under Section 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the

¶105

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶106

¶107

records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the costs of and incident to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under sub-section (1) shall be in its discretion.

¶108

In Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana [(1993) 1 SCC 499] , the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 came up for consideration before the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court. While considering whether the High Court could have reappreciated entire evidence, the Apex Court held that, even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise, the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re-appreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report. The

¶109

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶110

¶111

High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdiction. Even by the presence of the word ‘propriety’ it cannot mean that there could be a re-appreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-appreciation of evidence; on the contrary, by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it.

¶112

In T. Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari [(1999) 7 SCC 275] the Apex Court held that, the words ‘to satisfy itself’ employed in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 no doubt is a power of superintendence, and the High Court is not required to interfere with the finding of fact merely because the High Court is not in agreement with the findings of the courts below. It is also true that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 25 of the Act is not an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the courts below. But where a finding arrived at by the courts below is based on no evidence, the High Court would be justified in interfering

¶113

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶114

¶115

with such a finding recorded by the courts below.

¶116

22. In Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645] the

¶117

Apex Court considered the exercise of revisional power by the High Court, under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in the context of an issue as to whether the relationship of landlord-tenant existed or not. It was urged that whether such relationship existed would be a jurisdictional fact. Relying on the decision in Rukmini Amma Saradamma it was contended that, however wide the jurisdiction of the revisional court under Section 20 of the Act may be, it cannot have jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding upsetting the finding arrived at by the appellate authority. The Apex Court held that, though the revisional power under Section 20 of the Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power conferred on the civil court under the Code. Therefore, notwithstanding the use of the expression ‘propriety’ in Section 20 of the Act, the revisional court will not be entitled to re- appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in

¶118

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶119

¶120

place of the conclusion of the appellate authority. On examining the impugned judgment of the High Court, in the light of the aforesaid ratio, the Apex Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist.

¶121

In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78] a Five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the revisional powers of the High Court under Rent Acts operating in different States. After referring to the law laid down in Rukmini Amma Saradamma the Apex Court reiterated that even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 does not enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. The Constitution Bench agreed with the view of the Three-Judge Bench in Rukmini Amma Saradamma that the word ‘propriety’ does not confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety of the

¶122

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶123

¶124

order impugned before it.

¶125

In Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [AIR

¶126

2019 SC 3803 : 2019 (4) KHC 412] considering the matter in the backdrop of law laid down in Rukmini Amma Saradamma , Ubaiba and Dilbahar Singh the Apex Court held that the findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not even be said to be perverse in any way. The High Court could not have re- appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

¶127

Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the reasoning of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority while ordering eviction of the tenant under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of eviction passed against the petitioner-tenant under Section

¶128

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶129

¶130

11(3) of the Act, which now stands as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

¶131

26 . The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would would submit that considering the situation prevailing in the country on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the tenant may be given at least ten months' time to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms.

¶132

27. On the above request made by the learned counsel for the tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would submit that a period of ten months for surrendering the vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms can be granted, on condition that the tenant shall clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent and continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default.

¶133

The learned counsel for the tenant would submit that the tenant is prepared to clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent, within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court and he shall continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default, till he gives vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the landlord.

¶134

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶135

¶136

In such circumstances, these Rent Control Revision Petitions are dismissed declining interference on the impugned common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority; however by granting ten months' time to the petitioner-tenant, to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the respondent-landlord, considering the situation prevailing in the Country on account of COVID-19 pandemic, subject to the following conditions:

¶137

(i) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petitions shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the petitioner-landlord within ten months from the date of this order and that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop room and further he shall conduct any business in the petition schedule shop room only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/ consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities;

¶138

(ii) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petitions shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within four weeks from

¶139

R.C.Rev.No.180 & 181 of 2021

¶140

¶141

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding months, without any default;

¶142

(iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondenttenant in the Rent Control Petition failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms will stand cancelled automatically and the petitionerlandlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.

¶143

Sd/-

¶144

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR

JUDGE