Eviction can be mandated under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act if bona fide needs are established.

ORDER

Harisankar V. Menon, J This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant –

respondent in RCP No.18 of 2023 before the Rent Controller, Kochi, seeking to challenge the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, in RCA No.14 of 2025 by which the eviction ordered by the Rent Controller stood confirmed.

2. Heard Sri.Martin Jose P., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as well as Sri.Babu Karukapadath, the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The respondents herein had instituted the rent control petition seeking eviction of the petitioner herein under the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the ‘Act’), since the 2^nd respondent herein, who is the wife of the 1^st respondent, had completed her D. Pharm course on account of which the petition schedule building was required for starting a pharmacy/medical store. It was contended that the 2^nd respondent, being a dependent family member, and since there were no other buildings in their ownership, eviction requires to be ordered under (3) of the Act. They also sought eviction with reference to the provisions of (4)(iii) of the Act. The Rent Controller, having ordered eviction under both counts by an order dated 18.02.2025, an appeal was instituted before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority having confirmed the order of eviction, the revision petitioner is before this Court as noticed above.

4. The scope of a revision petition instituted under Section 20 of the Act is very limited, as has been held by the Apex Court inRukmini Amma Saradamma V. Kallyani Sulochana and Others [ (1993) 1 SCC 499 ] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited V. Dilbahar Singh [ (2014) 9 SCC 78 ]

5. On an evaluation of the impugned orders, we notice that the bona fide need projected as noticed above has been taken into account and appreciated with reference to the evidence adduced in that regard. The appreciation of evidence as above does not require to be revisited in this revision petition, as noticed earlier.

6. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, and the revision petition would stand dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner- tenant submitted that atleast eight months' time may be granted for vacating the petition schedule premises.

Having considered the submissions made as above, we are of the opinion that the revision petitioner be granted six months to vacate the schedule premises, subject to the following conditions:

i. The tenant shall file an undertaking before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within four weeks from today, stating that he will vacate the building within six months from today.

ii. The tenant shall continue to pay the rent till the actual surrender of the building.

Sd/-