Kadavath Meethal Mariyam v. Vijesh

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE M.R. ANITHA MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021/18TH SRAVANA, 1943 R.C.REV.NO.101 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2021 IN R.C.A.NO.19/2019 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-I), KALPETTA AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 IN R.C.P.NO.11/2017 OF THE RENT CONTROLLER (MUNSIFF), MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **KADAVATH MEETHAL MARIYAM AGED 61 YEARS D/O KADAVATH MEETHAL MOHAMMED, W/O ASSAINAR, PANAMARAM POST AND VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK.** **BY ADVS. ARUN KRISHNA DHAN T.K.SANDEEP ARJUN SREEDHAR ALEX ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **VIJESH AGED 38 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN VIJESH BHAVAN, PULIKKAD, NALLURNAD POST AND VILLAGBE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, PIN-670645.** **BY ADV ALEX.M.SCARIA** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 2 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner herein is the appellant in R.C.A.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Kalpetta and the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Mananthavady. 2. The respondent herein-landlord filed R.C.P.No.11 of 2017 under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room on the ground of _bona fide_ need to start a ready-made garments business. Presently the landlord is helping his father, who is conducting business in the name and style ‘Beauty Rawa Store’ at Manathavady. The landlord intends to start his own business in the petition schedule shop room to augment his income. In the Rent Control Petition it is alleged that the tenant is neither conducting any serious business in the petition schedule shop room nor depending on the income derived therefrom for her livelihood. The tenant and her R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 3 husband own extensive properties including plantations, buildings and business concerns. 3. The tenant filed objections contending, _inter alia_ , that the landlord is running an established business and he has no bona fide need to start a ready-made garments business in the petition schedule shop room. The proprietary concern ‘Beauty Rawa Store’ at Manathavady is owned by the landlord himself, which brings in considerable income to the landlord. The tenant is a housewife and she and her family is depending upon the income derived out of the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room. There are no other suitable buildings available in the locality to house the business of the tenant. The husband of the tenant has no other source of income. Even if he has other source of income, it will have no bearing on this case. 4. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlord was examined as PW1 Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on his side. The husband of the tenant was examined as RW1. After considering the pleadings and also the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found no reason to disbelieve or doubt the bonafides of the need projected by the landlord in the Rent Control Petition to start a ready-made garments business R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 4 in the petition schedule shop room. Since no attempt on the side of the tenant to prove that the landlord owned other buildings in the locality suitable for the business he intends to start, the Rent Control Court held that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord produced documents to show that the tenant and her husband owned extensive properties in Wayanad. Husband of the tenant, who was examined as RW1, admitted that he and his wife owned considerable landed properties in Wayanad. RW1 admitted that he and his wife did not know the income generated from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room. According to RW1, his son only knows the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room. The Rent Control Court, after considering the evidence on record, found that the tenant is not depending upon the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room for her livelihood. She has no connection at all to the business conducted in that shop room. Therefore, the Rent Control Court held that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court, by the order dated 28.06.2019, directed the R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 5 tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule shop room, within two months from the date of that order and also to pay costs to the landlord. 5. The tenant challenged the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, i.e., R.C.A.No.19 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta. After analysing the evidence on record, the Appellate Authority found no grounds to accept the contention of the tenant that the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition is only a mere ruse for her eviction from the petition schedule shop room. Therefore, the Rent Control Court rightly accepted the bona fide need projected by the landlord, which warrants no interference. Since RW1 could not specifically point out the vacant buildings allegedly in possession of the landlord, the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is not attracted. The Appellate Authority, after analysing the oral testimony of PW1 and RW1 confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority noticed that the evidence of RW1 shows that R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 6 he had constructed a new building with 21 rooms and that building is yet to be inaugurated and that, the ground floor of that building is having 4 shop rooms. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 26.02.2021 in R.C.A.No.19 of 2019, confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court in its order dated 28.06.2019 in R.C.P.No.11 of 2017, the tenant is before this Court in this Revision Petition filed under Section 20 of the Act. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act, which now stands confirmed by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 9. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 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. As per the first R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 7 proviso to Section 11(1), nothing contained in this Section shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is the State Government or the Central Government or other public authority notified under this Act. As per the second proviso to Section 11(1), where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Rent Control Court shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if it records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court and such Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in this Section, notwithstanding that the court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. 10. 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 R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 8 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. As per the third proviso to Section 11(3), no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivos shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of the instrument. As per the fourth proviso to Section 11(3), if a landlord after obtaining an order to be put in possession transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person, the transferee shall not be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. 11. The bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition by the landlord to get possession of the petition schedule shop room is for starting a ready-made garments R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 9 business to augment his income. In order to prove bona fide need, the landlord was examined as PW1, who deposed that he intents to start a business in ready-made garments in the petition schedule shop room. As rightly noticed by the Appellate Authority in the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2021, in cross examination, the evidence of PW1 as to bona fide need could not be shattered. During cross examination, PW1 spoke about the capital required for the business, the capital he intents to invest, the place from where he would procure ready-made garments, the number of staff required for the proposed business, etc. 12. Before the Appellate Authority, relying on the averments in paragraph 5 of the Rent Control Petition, it was argued by the learned counsel for the tenant that there is no pleadings for bona fide need, instead what is pleaded is that, the landlord is curious and more enthusiastic to have a readymade garment business in his own building. The Appellate Authority noticed that, in paragraph 3 of the Rent Control Petition, the landlord has stated that the petition schedule shop room is absolutely necessary for starting ready-made garment business. In paragraph 4 of the Rent Control Petition, the R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 10 landlord has stated that, his need for the building is genuine and bona fide. Therefore, the Appellate Authority found that the averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Rent Control Petition are sufficient enough to put the tenant on notice about the bona fide need of the landlord. 13. Before the Appellate Authority, it was argued by the learned counsel for the tenant that the averments in the Rent Control Petition as well as the evidence of PW1 do not show that he requires any better income and as such, the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition is not genuine. The Appellate Authority noticed that, in paragraph 5 of the Rent Control Petition, the landlord has averred that he is now eking his livelihood by assisting his father, who is conducting 'Beauty Rawa Store' at Mananthavady and he needs to conduct business in the town for a better income to maintain his family consisting of his wife, kid and others. Before the Appellate Authority, it was argued further by the learned counsel for the tenant that, without the help of PW1, his father cannot run the business at Mananthavady. The Appellate Authority noticed that, before the Rent Control Court, the specific contention raised by the tenant was that, 'Beauty Rawa Store' is a business exclusively R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 11 conducted by PW1. However, no materials were placed before the Rent Control Court to substantiate that contention. After analysing the pleadings and materials on record, the Appellate Authority arrived at a conclusion that PW1 has no independent business of his own, who is having experience in business. When such a person put forth a need for starting his own business, it appears to be most genuine, sincere and acceptable. 14. In **R.C. Thamrakar v. Nidi Lekha [(2001) 8 SCC 431]** the Apex Court observed that, it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. 15. 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 R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 12 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 **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. 16. 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. 17. In the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, arrived at a R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 13 conclusion that the Rent Control Court in its order dated 28.06.2019 in R.C.P.No.11 of 2017 has rightly accepted the bona fide need projected by the landlord to get vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court that there is no reason to doubt the bona fide need of the landlord for vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room. 18. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, 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. 19. Though a vague contention was raised in the objection filed by the tenant in R.C.P.No.11 of 2017 that the landlord have possession of a vacant building, suitable for the proposed need, that contention was given up during evidence. During cross examination, no question was put to PW1 regarding the so called vacant building in his possession. The Appellate Authority noticed that, as per the evidence of PW1, R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 14 the business conducted by his father at Mananthavady is in a rented premises. RW1 could not specifically point out any building, which is in vacant possession of the landlord. Therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 20. 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 no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. 21. In **Ammeer Hamsa v. Ramabhadran and 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 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** R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 15 **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 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 R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 16 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. 22. In the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority found that, from the admission made by RW1, it is futile for the tenant to contend that she is depending upon the income from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room for her livelihood. RW1 has admitted that he owns several buildings in Panamaram Panchayat, some of which have already been let out. RW1 has also admitted that he and his wife (tenant) own an estate. Though RW1 contended that some of the buildings have been sold out, no documents were produced to substantiate the said contention. RW1 could not say anything about the income of the tenant from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. No materials were placed before the Rent Control Court to prove the income generated from that R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 17 business. RW1 has also deposed that the business in the petition schedule shop room is managed by his son. When there is absolutely no evidence before the Rent Control Court as to the income of the tenant derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule shop room, it cannot be contended that the tenant is depending for her livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in that shop room, in order to attract the first limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 23. Insofar as the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is concerned, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief, PW1 has given complete details of the shop rooms, which are available in the locality for the tenant to carry on her trade or business. The evidence of PW1 with precise details of the shop rooms lying vacant in the locality, stands unchallenged during cross examination. RW1 could not effectively assert that no such vacant buildings are available in the locality. Further, RW1 has admitted that he is having a new building with 21 rooms, which is yet to be inaugurated and the ground floor of that building have 4 shop rooms. Therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 18 found that the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is also not attracted and as such, the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 24. 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 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. 25. 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 R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 19 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 reappreciating 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 itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. 26. 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 R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 20 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. 27. 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 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 R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 21 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 reappreciating the evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist. 28. 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 R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 22 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. 29. 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. 30. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, it cannot be said that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, which now stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is either perverse or patently illegal or it suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, we find no R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 23 reason to interfere with the order of eviction concurrently passed by the authorities below. 31. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would submit that, considering the situation prevailing in the country on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the tenant may be granted at least six month's time to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room. 32. On the above request made by the learned counsel for the tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would submit that, since RW1 has already constructed a building with 21 rooms, the tenant may not be granted time as sought for as above, to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room. In case this Court feels that, considering the situation prevailing in the country on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the tenant has to be given a reasonable time for giving vacant possession, grant of such time shall be 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. 33. The learned counsel for the tenant would submit that the tenant is prepared to clear the entire dues towards arrears R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 24 of rent, within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court and she shall continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default, till she gives vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlord. 34. In such circumstances, this Rent Control Revision is dismissed declining interference on the impugned order of the Rent Control Court and the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority; however by granting three months' time to the petitioner-tenant, to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the respondent-landlord, considering the situation prevailing in the Country on account of COVID-19 pandemic, subject to the following conditions: - (i) The respondent-tenant 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 she will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the petitionerlandlord within three months from the date of this order and that, she shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop room; - (ii) The respondent-tenant 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 R.C.R.No.101 of 2021 25 Court, as the case may be, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding month, without any default; - (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 room will stand cancelled automatically and the petitionerlandlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/-** **M.R. ANITHA JUDGE** shg