PUSHPADAS Vs. SUKUMARA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision. The respondent-landlord had filed R.C.P. No. 5 of 2001 before the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam seeking an order of eviction against the tenant alleging grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Court. However, as per order dated 19.12.2005 in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2005, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mavelikkara has allowed the landlord's appeal and has ordered eviction. The above revision is filed by the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the revision, the respondent-landlord died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as the landlord and the tenant respectively.

(2.) The petition schedule building belongs to the landlord, having obtained title to the same under a partition deed. The building was given on rent to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 967/- and he is in possession of the same, doing business in fertilizers and bone powder. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant was conducting another business by name 'Das Agencies' at the Mavelikkara-Thattarambalam Junction, in a building by name 'Soma Sadanam'. The said business also is in fertilizers. The tenant has his own building close to his house and there also, he is doing business in fertilizers, bone powder etc. The landlord's son Renjith has completed his Automobile Diploma Course and he wants to start an automobile work shop and also an automobile spare parts business. For the purpose, the petition schedule building is bonafide needed by the landlord. It is further stated in the petition that an amount of Rs. 80,000/- has been received from the tenant for the purpose of construction of the building, which the landlord is ready to return. However, the tenant is not willing to receive the same and to surrender vacant possession of the building. Since the tenant was not willing to receive the amount, the same has been deposited in his bank account. It is further alleged that the tenant has constructed an additional structure on the northern side of the building thereby reducing the frontage of the building. According to the landlord, the construction amounted to material alteration of the building, thereby reducing its value and utility. The landlord also pleaded that the tenant was not depending on the income from the business carried on by him in the tenanted premises for his livelihood. According to the landlord, there were other suitable buildings available in the locality for the tenant to shift his business. Therefore, he claimed eviction of the tenant on the grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the tenant contending that he was not a tenant of the building. According to the tenant, he was in possession of the building and godown on the basis of an agreement dated 3.1.1992 and there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. According to him, the agreement was suppressed by the landlord. He contended that there was no provision in the agreement for determination of the lease and therefore, the same could only be treated as a perpetual lease from year to year. Hence, the Rent Control Act itself was not applicable to the said lease. He further alleged that the building was constructed for the purpose of the tenant, taking into account his requirements. Provision was made for the parking all types of vehicles also. The building was thus constructed as a godown and two rooms, to suit his requirements and he is conducting his business in bone powder, chemicals, insecticides and other fertilizers therein. He had given an amount of Rs. 65,000/- to the landlord for construction of the building and a further amount of Rs. 15,000/- for construction of the godown on condition that interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum should be paid on the amount advanced. The rent for the premises was fixed at Rs. 967/-, at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per sq.ft. and it was agreed to adjust the rent towards the interest payable on the advance amount. On return of the amount of Rs. 80,000/- so advanced, as per the terms of the agreement, the building was to be let out to the tenant by the landlord on the fair rent, to be fixed at that time. The property tax in respect of the building was to be paid by the tenant. The tenant disputed the need of the landlord's son to start a business of his own. According to the tenant, he was already conducting a Pollution Control Centre in the room situate on the southern side of the petition schedule building. The tenant admitted that he was conducting another business by name 'Das Agencies'. But, according to him, the same was only an outlet for the business conducted by him in the petition schedule building. The said business was only seasonal. In a building, near his residential house, his wife was conducting an SSI unit over which he has no control. The case of the tenant was that he was depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises for his livelihood. He also contended that there were no other suitable buildings available in the locality to shift his business. The allegation that he had made additional constructions without the consent of the landlord was denied by him. According to him, it is only a temporary structure made as an extension of the main building and was intended only to protect the main building. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control Petition.