KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL KATHAT ABDUL Vs. A T USHAIRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery ordering eviction against him on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11 reversing the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the RCP. The need projected by the landlady was that her husband wants to conduct a Super Market in the petition schedule building which consists of two rooms in the ground floor and one room in the upstair. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence did not find anything to suspect the bona fides of the need projected. However, it was found that during the pendency of the RCP, an order of eviction had been passed in respect of the ground floor room adjacent to the petition schedule building. According to the Rent Control Court, as an order of eviction has been obtained by the landlady also in respect of the adjacent room it was open to the landlady to accomplish the need by utilizing that room. The learned Appellate Authority, however, noticed that the landlady was yet to come into actual possession of that room. It was also noticed that landlady is not the absolute owner of that room. In that view of the matter, the learned Appellate Authority would reverse the decision of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction.

(2.) IN this revision, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.A.Mohammed Mustaque, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments based on the grounds raised. Sri.Mustaque drew our attention to the judgment of the Appellate Authority and also to certain items of evidence which according to him, were not noticed by the Appellate Authority. Sri.Mustaque submitted that the question is whether the need is bona fide. For answering the question, the action of the landlady in not utilising the building possession of which has come into her hands will be relevant.

(3.) HOWEVER, considering the very fervent appeal of Sri.Mohammed Mustaque, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant that at least one year's time may be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises, we feel that there is justification for granting the revision petitioner/tenant at least one year's time to surrender the premises. HOWEVER, we are inclined to do so only on imposing conditions. We notice that the rent that the petitioner pays for the building in question is only Rs.45/-. We are sure that the same is far below the rent which the building may now fetch, if the same is let out today. Hence, by way of condition, we will be re-fixing the rent also. The result, therefore, is that;