Balakrishnan, J. - (1.) THE tenant, who suffered an order of eviction on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3), has filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act 2 of 1965. THE need projected by the landladies is that the husband of the second petitioner in the rent control petition, who retired from the Sales tax Department and who started practising as an advocate (mainly on the taxation laws), intends to put up his advocate's office in the petition schedule building. THE tenant resisted the claim contending that the purpose of the petition is only to reject the tenant and thereafter to sell the entire building to one Vikram Pillai who is in occupation of another room in the same building. It was also contended by the tenant that he is not actually the tenant, but it was the firm who occupied the petition schedule building.
(2.) ORIGINALLY, the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition rejecting the contention raised by the tenant that the tenancy was in favour of the firm and not in favour of the revision petitioner herein. He went up in appeal. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed that order. As against that, the landladies moved this court in revision. This court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It was observed by this court as follows; "However, since the learned Appellate Authority, whose powers in the matter of adduction of evidence are co-terminus with that of the Rent Control Court itself in terms of Section 18 (3) and Section 23 (1) of Act 2 of 1965 and Rule 16 (2) of Kerala Building and Lease Rent Control Rules has allowed the I.A., we do not proposed to interfere with that order. We will only observe that issue regarding the identity of the tenant does not seriously arise in the light of the pleadings including Ext.A6." Hence we do not find that the issue regarding the same raised by the tenant no longer survives. The Rent Control Court again considered the evidence adduced by the parties and found that the need projected by the landladies is bona fide. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the view so taken by the Rent Control Court. Sri.A.Balagopalan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner made strenuous arguments raising all the grounds mentioned in the revision petition. All the submissions of Mr.Balagopalan were strongly resisted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/landladies Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai. The main argument advanced by Sri.Balagopalan is that it is one Vikram Pillai, who is actually managing the petition schedule building and that the landladies are intending to sell the entire building to Vikram Pillai. That has been stoutly opposed by Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai stating that there is absolutely no evidence regarding the same. Except the allegation made by the tenant, there is no other evidence regarding the same.
(3.) THE other ground that has been pressed into service by the tenant is that PW1, who is the husband of the second petitioner in the rent control petition, has not occupied the room which was got evicted as per the order in RCP No.6/2003 and so that itself will show that the need projected is not bona fide. THE learned senior counsel Sri.Chandran Pillai has pointed out that only after getting eviction of this room, the landladies can make suitable alterations and modifications. THE contention that, that much the space is not required is also found to be not correct. It was contended by the landladies and evidence was let in that PW1 wants to computerise the office and that as the accounts books are to be verified (as an advocate practising on Taxation Law) large space is required. Learned Appellate Authority after analsing the evidence accepted that case also. THE learned Appellate Authority has reappraised the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court is well founded. THEre is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the courts below. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. Learned senior counsel Sri.Chandran Pillai submitted that the landladies will not alienate the property (schedule building) to Vikram Pillai or anybody else. We have record that submission. Sri.Balagopalan has now requested to grant one year time to the tenant to vacate the premises. Sri.Chandran Pillai has stated that the tenant is conducting business at so many other places also and that the rent control petition, which was filed in the year 2003 , could be successfully dragged on for about 8 years and so PW2 could not start an office of his own. It is also submitted that more than Rs.1,13,000/- is due from the tenant as rent. We are inclined to grant six months time to the revision petitioner to surrender the petition schedule building but subject to certain conditions.;