Muthari Sajida v. Cadiricanakka Pillandakath Zareena and others (RC Rev Nos. 123 of 2019 and 197 of 2019)

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ``` RCREV. NO. 123OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2013 IN RCP 205 OF 2012 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT), KANNUR JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2018 IN RCA 22 OF 2014 OF THE RENT ``` ``` CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT – II), ``` ## **`THALASSERY`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MUTHARI SAJIDA AGED 44 YEARS D/O ABDUL KHADER,HOTEL TAJ,SN PARK ROAD, KANNUR-01. BY ADVS. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.J.VISHNU SRI.VISHNU B.KURUP ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 CADIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH ZAREENA W/O ABDUL RASHEED,RESIDING AT 'JUDHI', ANJUKANDY,RICE MILL ROAD,KANNUR-17. 2 CIDIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH BASITH, AGED 44 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASHEED,EMPLOYED IN GULF, RESIDING AT 'JUDHI',ANJUKANDY,RICE MILL ROAD,KANNUR-17. 3 CADIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH MUHAMMED JAVID, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RASHEED,EMPLOYED IN GULF,RESIDING AT 'JUDHI',ANJUKANDY, RICE MILL ROAD,KANNUR-17. 4 CADIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH FATHIMA SHABNAM, AGED 38 YEARS ``` 2 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 ``` D/O ABDUL RASHEED,HOUSE WIFE,RESIDING AT 'JUDHI',ANJUKANDY, RICE MILL ROAD,KANNUR-17. ``` - `5 CADIRICANAKKA PILLNDAKATH ABDUL DAVOOD, AGED 34 YEARS EMPLOYED IN GULF,RESIDING AT 'JUDHI', ANJUKANDY,RICE MILL ROAD,KANNUR-17.` - `6 ABDUL MAJEED, HOTEL TAJ,SN PARK ROAD,KANNUR-01.` - `7 A.V.SUBAIDA, W/O KUNHAMU,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,NEAR IDAYATH MADRASSA, MATTOOL CENTRAL,MUTTOOL AMSOM DESOM,KANNUR-67302.` - `8 A.V.SHAHEEN, S/O KUNHAMU,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,NEAR IDAYATH MADRASSA, MATTOOL CENTRAL,MUTTOOL AMSOM DESOM,KANNUR-670302.` - `9 A.V.SUKAIL, S/O KUNHAMU,AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,NEAR IDAYATH MADRASSA, MATTOOL CENTAL,MUTTOOL AMSOM DESOM,KANNUR-670302.` ``` 10 A.V.FATHIMA, D/O KUNHAMU,AGE NOT KNOWN,NEAR IDAYATH MADRASSA, MATTOOL CENTAL,MUTTOOL AMSOM DESOM,KANNUR-670302. BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.M.BAIJU NOEL SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA SRI.K.BABU SRI.JEN JAISON ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev.197/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 197 OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2013 IN RCP 207 OF 2012 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT),KANNUR JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2018 IN RCA 30 OF 2014 OF THE RENT ``` ``` CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT – II), ``` ## **`THALASSERY`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ARAYILAKATH JAMEELA AGED 62 YEARS D/O MAMMOO, THREAD HOUSE, SM ROAD, KANNUR - 670 001 BY ADVS. T.ASAFALI SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 CADIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH ZAREENA AGED 64 YEARS W/O ABDUL RASHEED, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT JUDHI, ANJUKANDY, RICE MILL ROAD, KANNUR - 670 017 2 CADIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH BASITH AGED 44 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASHEED, EMPLOYED IN GULF, RESIDING AT JUDHI, ANUKANDY, RICE MILL ROAD, KANNUR - 670 017 3 CADIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH MUHAMMED JAVID AGED 42 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASHEED, EMPLOYED IN GULF, RESIDING AT JUDHI, ANJUKANDY, RICE MILL ROAD, KANNUR - 670 017 4 CADIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH FATHIMA SHABNAM AGED 38 YEARS ``` 4 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 ``` D/O ABDUL RASHEED, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT JUDHI, ANJUKANDY, RICE MILL ROAD, KANNUR - 670 017 5 CADIRICANAKKA PILLANDAKATH ABDUL DAWOOD AGED 34 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASHEED, EMPLOYED IN GULF, RESIDING AT JUDHI, ANJUKANDY, RICE MILL ROAD, KANNUR - 670 017 6 KUNHIPURAYIL ABDUL AZEEZ AGED 60 YEARS S/O V.P.MOOSA, RESIDING AT THREAD HOUSE, SM ROAD, KANNUR - 670 001 BY ADVS. SHAJI THOMAS(CAVEATOR) SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.K.BABU SRI.JEN JAISON ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev.123/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 5 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 ## **O R D E R** ## Anil K. Narendran, J. These Rent Control Revisions arise out of a common judgment dated 30.11.2018 in R.C.A.Nos.22 and 30 of 2014 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II), Thalassery, which arises out of a common order dated 30.11.2013 in R.C.P.Nos.205 and 207 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Kannur. The Rent Control Petitions, namely, R.C.P.Nos.205 and 207 of 2012, along with the connected matter, i.e., R.C.P.No.203 of 2012, were filed by the landlords under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the respective tenants from the petition schedule shop rooms. The need projected in the Rent Control Petitions for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is that of the landlords to start a supermarket in the petition schedule shop rooms. In R.C.P.No.205 of 2012, seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act, the landlords contended that the tenant, without the consent of the landlords, made material alteration diminishing the value of the petition schedule shop room. Before the Rent Control Court, the Rent Control Petitions were tried together. On the side of the landlords, Exts.A1 and A2 were marked 6 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 and PW1 was examined. On the side of the tenants, Exts.B1 to B12 were marked and RWs 1 to 4 were examined. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The order of eviction sought for in R.C.P.No.205 of 2012 under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act was declined. The tenants in R.C.P.Nos.205 and 207 of 2012 filed R.C.A.Nos.22 and 30 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. During the pendency of those appeals, the tenant in R.C.P.No.203 of 2012 vacated the petition schedule shop room. The Appellate Authority, by a common judgment dated 30.11.2018 confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court granting an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Challenging the order dated 30.11.2013 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.Nos.205 and 207 of 2012 and the judgment dated 30.11.2018 of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.Nos.22 and 30 of 2014 granting an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenants are before this Court in these Rent Control Revisions, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act. 2. On 27.05.2019, when R.C.Rev.No.123 of 2019 came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The tenant in R.C.P.No.205 of 2012, the 1[st] respondent herein, entered 7 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 appearance through counsel and notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 2 to 10. In I.A.No.1 of 2019, this Court granted an interim order staying the operation and implementation of the order of eviction in R.C.P.No.205 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur, for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 3. On 20.05.2019, when R.C.Rev.No.197 of 2019 came up for admission this Court the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents by speed post. In I.A.No.1 of 2019, this Court granted interim stay of execution of the order of eviction in R.C.P.No.207 of 2012, for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants in the respective Rent Control Revisions and also the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions would contend that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is only a ruse to evict the tenants from the petition schedule shop rooms. The contention raised by the tenants in this regard were not properly appreciated 8 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 by the Rent Control Court and also the Appellate Authority. The need projected in the Rent Control Petitions is that of the landlords, for the purpose of starting a supermarket. The building is not having a proper parking facility. The building is on the side of a busy road having one way traffic. It is a very old building, which is not suitable for starting a supermarket. Moreover, the landlords are having other suitable shop rooms in the locality. The contention of the tenant in R.C.P.No.205 of 2012 that she is mainly depending upon the income derived from the petition schedule shop room for her livelihood was not properly appreciated by the authorities below. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents– landlords would content that, on a proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority arrived at a conclusion 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. The tenants have no specific case in order to attract the provisions under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Similarly, the claim for protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was not supported by proper pleadings or reliable materials. Therefore, the findings of the authorities below while granting an order of 9 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. 7. 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 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 business carried on in such building and there is no 10 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. 8. In **Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust [(2005) 2 SCC 476],** a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in R.C.Rev.No.123 of 2019 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 **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 11 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 manifested in actual need so as to convince the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. 9. 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 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 12 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 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. 10. In **Ammu v. Nafeesa [2015 (5) KHC 718],** another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in R.C.Rev.No.123 of 2019, 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. 11. 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]** , 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 13 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 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 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 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 12. 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). 13. In the instant case, the need projected in the Rent Control Petitions is that of the landlords, for the purpose of starting a supermarket. The said need is substantiated by the oral testimony of PW1, the 2[nd] petitioner in R.C.P.No.207 of 2012. The tenants contended that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is only a ruse to evict the tenants from the petition schedule shop rooms. 15 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 The building is not having a proper parking facility. The building is on the side of a busy road having one way traffic. It is a very old building, which is not suitable for starting a supermarket. 14. In **Sheela v. KAMCO Employees Union [2010 (2) KLT 435]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that it is not for the tenant to dictate to landlord how to satisfy his need. In **Shanavas** **v. Poulose [2016 (3) KLT SN 6]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that the tenant is not supposed to dictate the terms to the landlord in the matter of decision making as to the destiny. The landlord alone can be the master of his plans. Having chosen the path and raised his claim to fructify the same, it is improper and unjust to view the bona fides in his claim with a suspicious eye. 15. Admittedly, the tenants are conducting business in the petition schedule shop rooms, which includes a hotel. Though it was contended that there was no direct access to the petition schedule shop rooms from the nearby road, PW1 has clarified in reexamination that the said rooms are accessible directly from the nearby road. After analysing the evidence on record, the authorities below found that the contentions raised by the tenants against the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petitions have no legs to stand. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions 16 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 referred to supra, it cannot be said that the authorities below went wrong in holding 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. The said finding of the authorities below is neither perverse nor patently illegal and it cannot also be said that while arriving at such a finding they have committed any manifest error. 16. The tenant in R.C.P.No.205 of 2012 raised a contention that the previous landlords granted lease for a period of 30 years, considering the amount alleged to have been spent by him for renovation of the petition schedule shop room. Ext.B12 is stated to be a copy of the lease deed executed on 20.12.1998, for a period of 30 years. The marking of the said document through DW3 was objected by the landlords and therefore, that document was marked subject to proof. The tenant has not taken any steps to prove Ext.B12. On a perusal of the said document, the Rent Control Court noticed that such a recital was interpolated in Ext.B12 and therefore, the contention of the tenant that he is entitled to occupy the petition schedule shop room for a period of 30 years does not deserve appreciation. The said finding of the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The reasoning of the authorities below on the above aspect is neither perverse nor 17 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 patently illegal and it cannot also be said that while arriving at such conclusion they have committed any manifest error, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. 17. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority found 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 tenants are not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3). During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions could not make out a case that the finding of the authorities below o the above aspects are either perverse or patently illegal, warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act. 18. 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 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 18 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 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 itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. ## 19. 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 19 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 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. 20. In **Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [AIR 2019 SC 3803 : 2019 (4) KHC 412]** after considering the matter in the backdrop of law laid down in Rukmini Amma Saradamma, Ubaiba and Dilbahar Singh (supra) the Apex Court held that when the findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not be said to be perverse in any way, - the High Court could not re appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts below while exercising revisional jurisdiction **.** 21. 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(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 by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act. 20 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner–tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions would submit that, considering the situation prevailing in the country on account of Covid-19 pandemic the tenant may be granted time six months' time for vacating the premises. 23. On the above request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, the learned counsel for the respondentslandlords would submit that the reasonable period of six months may be granted to the tenants for giving vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms, 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. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions 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 gives vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the landlords. 25. In such circumstances, this Rent Control Revision is dismissed declining interference on the order of eviction granted by 21 ## R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 the courts below under Section 11(3) of the Act; however by granting six months' time to the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions, to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the respondents-landlords, considering the situation prevailing in the Country on account of Covid 19 pandemic, subject to the following conditions; - (i) The respondent-tenant in the respective Rent Control Petitions shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court 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 shop rooms to the petitioners-landlords within six months from the date of this order and that, they shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop rooms and further that they will 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; - (ii) The respondent-tenant in the respective 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 four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified 22 R.C.R.Nos.123 and 197 of 2019 copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding months, without any default; - (iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondenttenant in the respective 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 petitioners-landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. Sd/- ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** PV