BRIHASPATHI ALIAS IMBICHI Vs. RAMADASAN ALIAS SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein are tenants of the schedule building which was sought to be evicted in R.C.P. No. 107/05 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. The 1st respondent herein is the landlord. The parties are referred hereinafter as landlords and tenants.

(2.) The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act for short) seeking eviction on the ground that the petition schedule building is required for expansion of the Automobile Workshop conducted by the landlord, by starting an industry in the premises for performing industrial works connected with repairs of vehicles. The tenants resisted the petition inter alia contending that the lease deed executed is for a period of 15 years and that the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction unless and until the period of lease is over. The need projected was also disputed as not genuine. According to the tenants it was only a ruse to evict the petitioner with an intention to let out the building for higher rent. It is also contended that no other space is available for shifting of the business conducted by the tenants. It is further contended that the tenants have expended huge amounts for constructions in the schedule premises which were permitted by the landlord.

(3.) Initially the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3). But the tenant preferred appeal, R.C.A. No. 136/06, in which the matter was remanded on the findings that the landlord can seek eviction only under Section 11(8). Subsequently the Rent Control Petition was amended incorporating grounds under Section 11(8). The tenants also filed additional counter statements contending that the hardships which will be caused to the tenants will outweigh the advantages available to the landlord, if such petition is allowed. Evidence before the Trial Court consisted of oral testimonies of the landlord as PW1. One among the tenants was examined as RW1. RW2 and RW4 are witnesses examined on behalf of the tenants. Exts. A1 to A4 documents were marked on behalf of the landlord and Exts.B1 to B3(A) documents were marked on behalf of the tenants. C1 to C4 Court Exhibits were marked which include C1 and C2 commission reports. Considering the entire evidence on record and on the basis of directions issued by the Appellate Authority while remanding the case, the Rent Control Court found that the need projected by the landlord for additional accommodation is bonafide and genuine. After evaluating the comparative hardships which will be caused to both sides, the Rent Control Court observed that the hardships which will be caused to the tenant is lesser in magnitude when compared to the advantages of the landlord, if the scheduled building is evicted. It is found that the contention regarding expenditure of amounts for constructions in the schedule building, need not be considered while evaluating comparative hardships as provided under Section 11(10) of the Act. Therefore the tenants were ordered to be evicted under Section 11(8).