A landlord's bona fide need for eviction under the Rent Control Act can be affirmed even in the absence of rent arrears.

ORDER

P.Q.Barkath Ali, J.

The tenants are the revision petitioners. The landlords sought eviction of the petition schedule building under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of the Rent Control Act i.e. arrears of rent and bona fide need of the landlord. The Rent Control Court allowed the rent control petition under Section 11 (3) of the Act, but rejected claim for eviction under Section Section 11 (2) (b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said finding of the Rent Control Court. The tenants have come up in revision.

2. The landlords/revision respondents claimed eviction on the ground that the rent is in arrears and that landlord bona fide needs the petition schedule building for PW-1 son–in –law of the first petitioner in the rent control petition to start stationery business. The revision petitioners/tenants resisted the claim contending that the son -in- law of the first petitioner in the rent control petition is not a dependent of the respondents, that he has his own business and income and that there are other vacant buildings in the possession of the landlords to conduct the R.C.R..No.83/2009 2 business and that the petition schedule building is not suitable for conducting any stationery business.

3. Before the Rent Control Court PW-1 was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the landlords and RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were produced by the tenants. The Rent Control Court disallowed the claim for eviction under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act finding that there are no arrears of rent, but allowed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11 (3) of the Act finding that landlord bona fide needs the petition schedule building for PW1 to conduct stationery business. The contention of the tenants that PW-1 has other business of his own and that there are other vacant buildings in the possession of the landlords, were rejected by the rent control court. The said finding of the Rent Control Court is confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

4. Sri.V.Premchand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would content that PW1 has other business of his own and that the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority erred in finding that no other building was in possession of the landlords.

5. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both the parties before the Rent Control Court and order of the Rent R.C.R..No.83/2009 3 Control Court as well as the judgment of the appellate authority. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

Hence, this revision petition will stand dismissed.

6. The counsel for the revision petitioner sought for one year's time for surrendering the building as the revision petitioners are residing there. Taking into consideration of the above facts, we feel that six months time can be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the petition schedule building on the following condition;

The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit before the rent Control Court within one week from today. Once the affidavit is filed, the execution court shall adjourn the Execution Petition to 16/12/2009. The revision petitioners shall pay arrears of rent, if any, up to 15/12/2009 to the landlords. The tenants shall surrender the petition schedule building on or before 15/12/2009 to the landlords.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk R.C.R..No.83/2009 4