Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner quite in extenso.
2. An application for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965), hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, was filed on ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need of the landlord and that the building requires to be reconstructed. The Rent Control Court granted the order on ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv) with direction to rebuild within a specified time limit and to allot one room in the ground floor of the reconstructed building to the tenant.
3. PW1 is the landlady. PW2 is her husband. PW3 is the Advocate Commissioner who conducted local inspection and submitted Ext.C1 report. The tenant gave evidence as RW1. The Rent Control Court considered the entire materials on record and held that the oral evidence of PW3, the Commissioner and Ext.C1 report on local inspection corroborate the testimony of PW1 regarding the fact that the building requires reconstruction. The landlord has proved that she has permit to build as issued by the competent local authority. She also proved that she has the means to put up the structure. In fact, the tenant in cross examination has also well conceded to the fact that the landlady is a daughter of an erstwhile trader and has sufficient wealth to put up the building. The nature of the building, aged more than 75 years and the situation in which it is now, have been considered by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court. The conclusions arrived at by both the authorities concurrently do not deserve visitation in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act since we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety either in appreciation of evidence on record or in assimilating the pleadings and entering a wholesome consideration of the case. We also do not see any perverse irregularity in dealing with the appeal or the rent control petition. The revision, therefore, fails.
4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that his client may be granted sufficient time to vacate since he, even going by the evidence on record and pleadings, is carrying on activity of spray painting in the petition schedule room to eke livelihood for him and his family. Taking a lenient view in this regard, we think that the petitioner may be granted a period of four months' time to vacate.
In the result,
a) This revision is dismissed.
b) Revision petitioner is granted six months' time from today to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlady on the following conditions:-
i. The revision petitioner remits the entire arrears of rent as on today before the executing court within two months from today and files an affidavit before the executing court within two months from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlady within six months from today.
ii. The revision petitioner pays charges towards use and occupation of the building at the current rent rate from today till he gives vacant possession of the premises to the landlady.
c) Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six months.
d) If there is default in performing any of the conditions imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenant as per this order will stand recalled automatically and the executing court shall effect delivery forthwith.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE