THAYYIL VISALAKSHI Vs. SWARGA LODGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and the ground that the tenants have used the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently under Section 11(4)(iv).

(2.) As for the order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent, the only submission made before us by Sri.K.H.Sakir, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, is that almost the entire arrears of rent found by the rent control court is already deposited. But, the learned counsel conceded that the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was not yet to be formally vacated. Under the above circumstances, we confirm that order giving to the revision petitioners two months' time from today to make further deposits, if necessary, and file an application under Section 11(2)(c) before the Rent Control Court for getting that order vacated.

(3.) The case of the landlords under sub section (3) of Section 11 was that PW1, who is one of the partners of the landlord firm, is without any job or avocation and that he wants to conduct hotel business in the petition schedule premises, wherein presently the tenants are conducting the very same business. The bona fides of the above need was disputed. It was contended that PW1 is already having other business. It was contended that the landlord firm is having other buildings elsewhere. It was also contended that at any rate the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first and second provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. The allegation of the landlords in the context of ground under section 11(4)(ii) was that on account of misuser of the building by the tenants, the value and utility of the building has become reduced materially and permanently. This allegation was also strongly disputed by the tenants, who contended that the present unsatisfactory state of the building is due to failure on the part of the landlords to attend to periodical repairs and maintenance. The Rent control Court conducted enquiry and at trial, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A7, Ext.C1 commission report and testimonies of PW1 and RW1. As already stated, PW1 was the partner of the landlord firm for whose need the building was sought to be vacated. The evidence of PW1 inspired the rent control court. In fact, RW1 himself stated before the Rent Control Court that PW1 does not have any job or avocation unlike the other partners of the firm, who were otherwise well placed in life. The Rent Control Court noticed that the landlord firm was having vacant possession of the up stair portion of the multi storied building, the ground floor portion of which is the petition schedule building. The learned rent control court rightly found that the landlord firm has special reason for insisting on getting possession of the petition schedule building, which is ideal even according to the tenants for conducting hotel business. Coming to the second proviso to sub section(3) of Section 11, the rent control court found on the basis of the evidence that the tenants were unsuccessful in showing that they satisfy either of the two ingredients of the said proviso. As regards the ground under Section 11(4)(ii), the rent control court relied on Ext.C1 commission report and also RW1's own admission regarding the unsatisfactory nature of the building. The court found that on account of the user of the petition schedule building in the present manner by the tenants, the situation was that the landlord firm was even unable to occupy a few rooms in the larger building belonging to the landlords. It was also found that the value and utility of the petition schedule building from the landlords' point of view has become materially and permanently reduced.