PUTHAN PURAYIL RAMACHANDRAN Vs. KANAPPALI IRINGA JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was the appellant in RCA No.85 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (in short 'Appellate Authority'), Vatakara. The respondents in this revision petition were the respondents in the above appeal.

(2.) This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, in RCP No.86 of 2016. The parties are for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigate status in the Rent Control Petition (RCP) as 'petitioners' and 'respondent'.

(3.) The petitioners had filed the RCP against the respondent, inter alia, pleading as follows: The petition schedule shop room (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'shop room') originally belonged to the 1 st petitioner's father, who had leased the shop room to the respondent as per Kachit No.331/1972 of the Sub Registry Office, Vatakara. The 1st petitioner's father had bequeathed the shop room in favour of the 1st petitioner as per Will deed dated 26.09.1959. After the death of the 1 st petitioner's father, she became the owner of the shop room. The respondent had attorned to the tenancy. The 2nd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is a seafarer by profession, on contract basis. He has completed the age of 60 years. His services would be terminated since he has reached the age of super annuation. The 2nd petitioner is no longer interested to undertake voyages. He is desirous of starting a stationery business in the shop room for his livelihood. The petitioners have no other shop rooms in their possession. The 2 nd petitioner is depending on the 1st petitioner. The petitioners' bona fide need the shop room for the aforesaid purpose. The respondent is not carrying on any significant business in the shop room for the last many years. He is not depending on the income derived from the business being conducted in the shop room for his livelihood. There are numerous vacant shop rooms in the locality for the respondent to shift his business. The petitioners issued a lawyer notice to the respondent demanding vacant possession of the shop room. However, the respondent sent a reply notice raising all baseless allegations. Hence the petitioners prayed for an order of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').