IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022/9TH PHALGUNA, 1943 RCREV. NO. 64 OF 2021 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/07/2019 IN R.C.A.NO.87 OF

2017 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT COURT), THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED

10/07/2017 IN R.C.P.NO.24 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF), KANNUR REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

BINDU K AGED 37 YEARS D/O. VIJAYAN, MAIMU COTTAGE, PURATHI, VALIYANNUR AMSOM DESOM P.O VARAM, KANNUR 670 594 BY ADV.SMT.C.LEENA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

MAIMOONA AGED 76 YEARS D/O. ABDUL KHADER, MAIMU COTTAGE, PURATHI, VALIYANNUR AMSOM DESOM P.O, VARAM, KANNUR 670 594 R BY ADV SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.24 of

2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Kannur, a petition filed by the respondent herein-landlady under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking eviction is that the landlady is presently living with her sister Kadeeja and she bona fide requires the petition schedule building for her own occupation. Before the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed counter opposing the order of eviction sought for. The landlady was examined as PW1 and the tenant was examined as RW1. A copy of the Building Tax Assessment Register was marked as Ext.B1 on the side of the tenant. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court arrived at a conclusion that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition, for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, is bona fide and the first proviso to Section

11(3) of the Act has no application. Since the tenanted premises is a residential building, the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act also has no application. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court, by the order dated 10.07.2017, granted order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act and the tenant was directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlady within a period of one month, failing which, the landlady is at liberty to execute the order of eviction through process of court.

2. Challenging the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.24 of 2016, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.87 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Thalassery, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 30.07.2019, thereby confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court.

3. Challenging the order dated 10.07.2017 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.24 of 2016 and the judgment dated 30.07.2019 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.87 of 2017, the tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section

20 of the Act.

4. On 24.03.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission to the respondent. In I.A.No.2 of 2021, this Court granted an interim order staying the execution of the judgment dated 30.07.2019 in R.C.A.No.87 of 2017 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, arising out of R.C.P.No.24 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur, including E.P.No.369 of 2019 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kannur, for a period of three months.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlady. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warrant