K.T.Sankaran, J.
The tenant in R.C.P.No.53 of 1996 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4) (ii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court tried R.C.P.No.53 of 1996 along with another connected Rent Control Petition, namely, R.C.P.No.52 of 1996 and passed a common order dated 21.6.1997 by which the Rent Control Petitions were dismissed. The landlady filed R.C.A.No.45 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority granted an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act, as per the judgment dated 19.11.2003. The judgment dated 19.11.2003 was challenged by the tenant in R.C.R.No.133 of 2004, which was considered along with the connected Revision, namely, R.C.R.No.132 of 2004 and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same as per the order dated 2.2.2012. The Division Bench held that the Appellate Authority
was right in holding that the landlady has established the ground under Section 11(8) of the Act. As regards the finding on comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11(10) of the Act, the Division Bench held that the Appellate Authority rightly held that the said component is in favour of the landlady. However, the Division Bench of this Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority only on the ground that during the pendency of the Revision, the original landlady died and the Appellate Authority has to consider the question whether the need survives in favour of her legal representative who was the supplemental second petitioner in the Rent Control Petition (second respondent in Revision). While remanding the case, this Court held that “when one reads carefully between the lines in the testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 it may be possible to make out that the need projected by the landlady was the need of the daughter PW2 also”. The decision of the Division Bench was reported in 2012 (2) KLT 849 (Chellappan v. Sarojini Amma).
2. After remand, PW6 and PW7 were examined before the Appellate Authority on the side of the landlady and PW2 and PW5 were recalled and examined again.
3. The oral evidence before the Rent Control Court as well as the additional evidence adduced before the Appellate Authority consist of the oral evidence of PW1 to PW7 and CPWs.1 to 6. The Appellate Authority considered the oral and documentary evidence in the case and held that the need of the legal representative of the landlady survives even after the death of the landlady. It has come out in evidence that there are four rooms in the building facing the main road and two other rooms facing the side road. The landlady is residing in the rear portion of the building. The legal representative of the landlady, who is the daughter of the landlady, was also residing with her. Her husband is employed at Ernakulam. It has come out in evidence that the landlady continued her residence in that building till her death and her daughter also stays in that building. The need put forward was that the original landlady along with her daughter, the supplemental second petitioner in the Rent Control Petition, wanted to conduct textile business in the petition schedule building. The Appellate Authority found that the facts and circumstances of the case would clearly disclose that the need projected by the legal representative of the landlady is genuine. There is nothing to indicate that the need projected is only a ruse for eviction. The Appellate Authority quoted the relevant evidence of some of the witnesses, analysed and considered the same and arrived at the conclusion that there was no ground to reject the prayer for eviction. After remand, the Rent Control Petition was amended and the need which was mentioned in the Rent Control Petition was properly explained and additional facts were inserted by way of amendment.
4. The findings rendered by the Appellate Authority are findings of fact. The revisional court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, would be justified in interfering with the findings of fact, only if there is any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the proceedings of the court below. There is no such irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The Revision Petition lacks merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant time till 31.7.2015 to the tenant to vacate the premises. Accordingly, time upto 31.7.2015 is granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court on or before 15.1.2015, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building on or before 31.7.2015 and also on condition that the tenant shall deposit the entire arrears of rent, if any, before the Rent Control Court on or before 15.1.2015 and also on condition that the monthly rent shall be paid on or before 10th of the succeeding months . If the tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the landlord would be entitled to proceed with the execution. If the tenant complies with the conditions, the execution proceedings shall not be commenced/continued till 31.7.2015.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ (P.D. RAJAN) Judge