MURUKESAN S. Vs. KUTHIRUMMAL ABDUL SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the tenants, against whom the order of eviction has been passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in RCP Nos.59 & 60 of 2011 of the Rent Control Court, Payyannur. Though they had preferred appeals as RCA Nos.146 & 147 of 2018, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeals, by a common judgment. These revision petitions have been filed challenging the legality, propriety and regularity of the concurrent findings made by of the Courts below under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Since the parties and their contentions raised in appeals are common, both revision petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly.

(2.) Though the challenge in these revision petitions are confined to the concurrent findings of the Courts below under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act only, it is apposite and necessary to understand the entire facts of the case in brief. Therefore, the facts of the rent control petitions can be summarised as follows:-

(3.) The parties are referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenants' respectively. According to the landlord, his son by name Sajeer, is an unemployed person who is in need of starting a business of his own. He was conducting an electronic show room in Gulf country for the last more than 3 years on partnership. But, due to the world economic crisis and unhealthy business competitions, his business had collapsed and he returned to his native place. He intends to start a showroom of electrical items in the petition schedule shop rooms. The petition schedule shop rooms in both rent control petitions are situated adjacently and one is double storied. The tenant in RCP No.60/2011, is conducting a Barber shop and the tenant in RCP.No.59/2011, is conducting a Jewellery business in the tenanted premises. The aforesaid petition schedule shop rooms are situated in the main commercial center of Payyannur town. The landlord's son-Sajeer has no other avocation or sources of income of his own at present. Sajeer is depending upon the landlord, for the petition schedule shop rooms. The petition schedule shop rooms in both RCPs are required to be attached together, so as to start the business as intended by Sajeer. He will be able to set up a palatial and good looking show room by attaching his other rooms situated behind the petition schedule rooms. Hence he has proceeded against both tenants simultaneously. Sajeer is quite able to start business, as he got sufficient experience in the field of electronic business. The tenants are not depending upon the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule shop rooms. To meet the bonafide needs of the landlord, no other suitable buildings are available in his direct possession.