GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, KANNUR DIVISION; SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POST, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI) v. SHUHAIB KAIPPALAKATH; RAHIZA SHUHAIB; P.V. ABDURAHIM

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` RCREV. NO. 167 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2020 IN RCA NO.22 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE), THALASSERY ``` ``` ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 IN RCP NO.71 OF 2012 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), KANNUR ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN RCA/RESPONDENTS IN RCP:`** - **`1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REP.BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, KANNUR DIVISION, KANNUR 670 001`** - **`2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, KANNUR DIVISION, KANNUR 670 001`** - **`3 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF POST, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001`** ``` BY ADV SRI.M.N.MANMADAN, CGC ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN RCA/PETITIONERS IN RCP:`** - **`1 SHUHAIB KAIPPALAKATH AGED 53 YEARS`** - **`S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI, BUSINESS RESIDING AT ZUBAIDA MANZIL, KAZANAKKOTTA NORTH, KANNUR 670 002, KANNUR TALUK`** - **`2 RAHIZA SHUHAIB AGED 44 YEARS D/O.P.V.ABDURAHIM, NO OCCUPATION, PULIMARATHINKEEL, NEW HOUSE, MUZHATHADAM ROAD, THAYTHERU, KANNUR 670 002, KANNUR TALUK RESPONDENTS ARE REP. BY THEIR P.A.HOLDER`** 2 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 ``` P.V.ABDURAHIM, S/O.ABDULLA VYDIAR, AGED 71, PULIMARATHINKEEL, NEW HOUSE, MUZHATHADAM ROAD, THAYATHERU, KANNUR 670 002, KANNUR TALUK. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)(K/1364/2003) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI(K/1057/1993) R.MAHESH VARMA(K/2518/1999) ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners are the respondents–tenants in R.C.P.No.71 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kannur, a petition filed by the respondents herein–landlords under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule building, which is occupied by Kannur Thana Post Office. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is that of the landlords to start business in Ayurvedic Medicines in the petition schedule building. Originally, the Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The tenants filed appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal was allowed and the order of eviction granted under both grounds was set aside. The landlord challenged that order before this Court by filing R.C.Rev.No.81 of 2017. By the order dated 09.10.2017, this Court remanded the matter to the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, in R.C.P.No.71 of 2012, Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the landlords and the power of attorney holder of the 1[st] respondent herein was examined as PW1 and the 2[nd] respondent herein was 4 ## R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 examined as PW2. On the side of the tenants, RW1 was examined. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court in the order dated 23.11.2017, arrived at a conclusion that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide, and that the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the tenant is not entitled to get the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3). By that order, the tenants are directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlords under Section 11(3) of the Act, within a period of two months from the date of that order. 2. Challenging the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, the tenants filed R.C.A.No.22 of 2018 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Thalassery, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 08.10.2020. Feeling aggrieved, by the order of eviction granted concurrently by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority, the tenants are before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act. 3. On 09.12.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued 5 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 notice to the respondents by speed post, returnable within four weeks. In I.A.No.1 of 2021, this Court granted an interim stay as prayed for a period of two months. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 4. Heard the learned Central Government counsel for the petitioners–tenants and the learned counsel for the respondents– landlords. 5. The issue that requires consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned Central Government Counsel would contend that the finding of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide is per se arbitrary and illegal. The learned Central Government Counsel would submit that in the absence of specific pleadings in the counter filed in the Rent Control Petition, the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the applicability of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be said to be either perverse of patently illegal. The second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was found not 6 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 applicable, concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, since the tenant is the Posal Department. 7. On the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, the submission of the learned Central government Counsel is that it is only a ruse to evict the tenants from the petition schedule building for one reason or other. Since the landlords are employed in Gulf countries, it cannot be said that they have a bona fide need of the petition schedule building for starting business in Ayurvedic Medicines. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords would contend that, on a proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the need projected is bona fide and that the landlords are entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The reasoning of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority on the above aspect cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. 9. Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 11(3) of 7 ## R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 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 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. 10. 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 8 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 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 **Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001)** **5 SCC 705]** bona fide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or 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. 11. In **Nalakath Saidali Haji v. Kalluparamba Musthafa and others [2015 (4) KHC 815]** a Division Bench of this Court relied on the law laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra. The Division Bench also noticed the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Kizhakkayil Suhara v. Manhantavida Aboobacker** **(dead) by Lrs. [(2001) 8 SCC 19]** that, not merely the need of the landlord but also the need of the dependants for whom eviction is sought, should be established to be bona fide. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that, neither the Rent Control Court nor the Appellate Authority has considered the need put forward by the landlord in accordance with the principles laid 9 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 down in the decisions referred to supra and in the manner in which, the same ought to have been considered. Both the authorities were influenced by the fact that the landlord was holding an employment visa. The Division Bench noticed that, there is absolutely no evidence available on record regarding the nature of the employment visa that the landlord was holding or the terms subject to which the said visa has been issued to him. The conclusions of both the authorities below are based on the admission made by the landlord, while he was cross-examined as PW1. Nothing precludes the landlord from going abroad for employment. The case of the landlord in the Rent Control Petition is that, he has left his employment abroad and has come back to his native place. The fact that he is still holding an employment visa, does not militate against the bona fide need pleaded by the landlord. 12. 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. 13. In **Regy V. Edthil v. Hubert Leslie D'Cruz [2016 (2)** **KLJ 164]** a Division Bench of this Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in **Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705]** , 10 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 wherein the Apex Court held that, in order to order eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord, the statutory requirement is that there must be an actual pressing need, not a mere whim or fanciful desire; it must be in praesenti and also the landlord must not be in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the town or city concerned. In the said decision, the Division Bench relied on the decision of the Apex Court in **Shiv Sarup** **Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222]** , wherein it was held that, the term 'bona fide' or 'genuinely' refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The phrase 'required bona fide' is suggestive of Legislative intent is an outcome of a sincere and honest desire, in contra distinction with a mere desire, by the Rent Control Legislation. In **Abdul Salam v. Sebastian [2013 (4) KLT 592]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that, when the landlord has clearly admitted in his evidence that vacant rooms are in his possession, he has to attribute special reasons for not occupying it, as the need mentioned under Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be a mere desire. On the facts of that case, since there was no sufficient opportunity given in the absence of plea, the Rent Control Petition was remitted to the Rent Control Court to enable the landlord to adduce evidence on that aspect and for fresh consideration by the Rent Control Court. Therefore, if there is admission on the part of the landlord of coming 11 ## R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 into possession of vacant rooms, unless special reason is given for not occupying the same, the need cannot be said to be bona fide and he is not entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 14. In **Gireeshbabu T.P. v. Jameela and others [2021 (5) KHC SN 30]** a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party, held that, in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 11(3) of the Act, a bona fide need must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire of the landlord in contradistinction with a mere pretext on the part of the landlord for evicting the tenant, claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. Once, on the basis of the materials on record, the landlord has succeeded in showing that the need to occupy the premises is natural, real, sincere and honest, and not a ruse to evict the tenant from the said premises, the landlord will certainly be entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act but, of course, subject to the first and second provisos to Section 11(3). 15. In **Gireeshbabu T.P. [2021 (5) KHC SN 30]** the Division Bench further held that a reading of the provisions under Section 11(3) of the Act makes it explicitly clear that, the landlord can approach the Rent Control Court seeking an order of eviction, 12 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 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. The bona fide need projected in a Rent Control Petition seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, for own occupation of the landlord or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him, need not be for the livelihood of the landlord or any member of his family dependent on him. Therefore, the fact that the landlord is an affluent person is of no consequence, if he proves the bona need for own occupation projected in the Rent Control Petition, for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. In **Ismail v. Kesavan [2004 (2) KLT 56]** a Division Bench of this Court, in the context of Section 11(3) of the Act, held that dependency does not mean financial dependency, but dependency for the building which belongs to the landlord. Therefore, the fact that the dependent family member of the landlord is an affluent person is of no consequence, if the landlord proves the bona need projected in the Rent Control Petition for occupation of any member of his family dependent on him, for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. ## 16. In **Gireeshbabu T.P. [2021 (5) KHC SN 30]** , on the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that since the bona fide need projected in a Rent Control Petition seeking eviction 13 ## R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 of the petition schedule shop room under Section 11(3) of the Act, for starting jewellery business by the landlords need not be for their livelihood, the fact that the landlords, who are husband and wife, have extensive landed property and getting considerable rental income is of no consequence, if they prove the bona need for own occupation projected in the Rent Control Petition. Therefore, the Division Bench found no merits in the contentions of the tenant that, since the landlords have extensive landed property and getting considerable rental income they have no genuine need for vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room and therefore the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition is only a ruse to evict the tenant from the petition schedule shop room. 17. In the instant case, the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule building, which is presently occupied by Kannur Thana Post Office, is that of the landlords to start business in Ayurvedic Medicines. That need was substantiated by the oral testimony of the 2[nd] respondent herein, who was examined as PW2. It has also come out in evidence that the petition schedule building is situated near to the Government Ayurvedic Dispensary and that the father of the 2[nd] respondent herein, who was examined as PW1, is a Doctor, who retired from Government Ayurvedic Hospital. During 14 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 the cross-examination of PW2, nothing could be brought out to discredit her version regarding the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 18. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide and it is not a ruse to evict the tenants from the petition schedule building. The reasoning of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority on that aspect cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal and it cannot also be said that the said authorities have committed any manifest error while arriving at such a conclusion, in view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra and that laid down in the decisions referred to in the impugned order/judgment. 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 records relating to any order passed 15 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 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. 20. 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 ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court. While considering whether the High Court could have re-appreciated 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 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 16 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. ## 21. 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 with such a finding recorded by the courts below. 22. In **Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645]** the 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 17 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 contended that, however wide the jurisdiction of the revisional court under Section 20 of the Act may be, it cannot have jurisdiction to reappreciate 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 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. ## 23. 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 18 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 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 order impugned before it. 24. In **Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [AIR 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. 25. In **Abdul Salam v. Sebastian [2013 (4) KLT 592]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that, even though in the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, it has been held that, in revisional jurisdiction there cannot be a re-appreciation of evidence in order to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts, it has been 19 ## R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 held in those decisions itself that, if the view taken is perverse and the statutory scheme has not been kept in mind and if it requires correction, then Court can re-appreciate the evidence. When the argument is that, the approach made by the authorities are perverse, it cannot be said that this Court cannot look into the pleadings and scan through the evidence to find out whether the conclusions have been arrived at properly on the pleadings and evidence. 26. In **Regy V. Edthil v. Hubert Leslie D'Cruz [2016 (2) KLJ 164]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that, the High Court (in revision) is obliged to test the order of the Rent Control Court on the touch stone of whether it is according to law. For that limited purpose, it may enter into reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Control Court is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available. 27. 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 tenants under Section 11(3) of the Act is neither perverse nor patently illegal. It cannot also be said that, while ordering the eviction of the tenants under Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court or the Rent Control Appellate Authority has 20 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 committed a manifest error, 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 by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act. 28. The learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners-tenants would submit that the petition schedule building is occupied by Kannur Thana Post Office and as such the tenants may be granted at least one year time to vacate the premises. 29. On the above request made by the learned Central Government Counsel for the tenants, the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords would submit that the landlords have no objection in this Court granting a reasonable time to the tenants for surrendering vacant possession of the petition schedule building, on condition that the tenants shall clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent and continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default. 30. The learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners-tenants would submit that the tenants are prepared to clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent, within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court and they shall continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default, till they give 21 R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlords. 31. In such circumstances, this Rent Control Revision is dismissed declining interference on the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the impugned order of the Rent Control Court; however, by granting eight months' time to the petitioners-tenants, to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the respondents-landlords, subject to the following conditions: - (i) The respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petition 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 they will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the petitioners-landlords within eight months from the date of this order and that, they shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule building and further they shall conduct any business in the petition schedule building only on the strength of a valid licence/ permission/ consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities; - (ii) The respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petition 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 two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and 22 ## R.C.(Rev.)No.167 of 2021 shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding months, without any default; - (ii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondentstenants 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 building will stand cancelled automatically and the petitioners-landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE** ACR