ASHRAF Vs. SHAMNAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise from a common judgment in RCA Nos.2/2018 and 3/2018 which arise from OP(RC) Nos.13 and 12/2012 of the Rent Control Court, Attingal.

(2.) This is the second round of litigation with reference to the subject matter in issue. The petition-schedule buildings form part of a three storied commercial building under the name M.H.Building. OP (RC)No.12/2012 concerns shop room bearing No.AMC II/248 in the ground floor of the said building and OP (RC) No. 13/12 concerns shop having room Nos.AMC II/249 having two rooms, AMC II/250 in the ground floor and two rooms bearing No.AMC II/252 in the first floor. The Rent Control Petitions were filed alleging bonafide need. The building owners are sisters and the requirement is for a business purpose of the petitioner in OP(RC) No.13/2012. It is alleged that the petitioner in OP (RC) No.13/2012 Smt.Shamnas has three children and the income derived by her husband, who is now managing the business of his father, is not sufficient enough to meet the expenses required for the family. Therefore, she had decided to start a business in furniture and home furnishing materials. She also requires the room of her sister Shefina's tenanted room as well, which is on the ground floor of the building, for her own purpose. Shefina therefore filed OP(RC) No. 12/2012, to evict the tenant, alleging that her sister is dependent on her for the shop room for conducting the business of furniture and home furnishings. The tenant denied the allegation. According to the tenant, the whole idea of the landladies is to evict them from the shop rooms and there is no bonafide need as alleged.

(3.) The Rent Control Petitions were jointly tried. PW1 and PW2 were examined on the side of the petitioners and they relied upon Exts.A1 to A24. The common tenant was examined as DW1. By a common order dated 8/1/2016, the Rent Control Court allowed the petitions. The tenants preferred RCA Nos.9/2016 and 10/2016 and the Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Court which came to be challenged before this Court by filing RCR Nos.171/2017 and 195/2017. This Court by judgment dated 9/8/2017 remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration. It was inter alia observed that it would appear that the tenants were having ten rooms in the upstair portion either at the time or subsequent to the filing of the petition. Since the tenants were having altogether 10 rooms in the first floor which was not disclosed, the element of bonafides on the part of the petitioner should be brought out, especially when the requirement is for a larger extent of the area. This Court therefore directed that the first limb of S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 requires to be considered and therefore while setting aside the common judgment of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller, the matter was remitted back to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.