V.K.SREERAM MADHAVAN Vs. AYADATHIL RATHANAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant of a building is the revision petitioner. He challenges the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 [for short, 'the Act] passed in RCP.No.21/2016 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram as confirmed by judgment dated 06.08.2019 in RCA.No.128/2017 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vadakara.

(2.) Eviction was sought projecting the need of two dependents of the landlord - landlord's husband and her daughter-in-law. The landlord's husband is a retired medical practitioner, who needs to start a clinic while the landlord's daughter-in-law, who was doing research in Ayurvedic medicine wanted to start an ayurvedic clinic with therapy centre. These needs of the two dependents of landlord was the reason for seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act with the necessary pleadings required under law. The tenant objected to the claim of the landlord and contended that the daughter-in-law of the landlord had no intention to start any clinic or therapy centre. The tenant also raised objections regarding availability of alternate building for him to move out as well as the defence regarding his dependence on the income from the building for his livelihood.

(3.) The landlord did not enter the witness box to prove the claim. The daughter-in-aw also did not enter the witness box. The only evidence adduced was that of the husband of the landlord who was examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 rent agreement. No other evidence was adduced either by the landlord or by the tenant to prove their respective contentions. The Rent Control Court allowed the eviction petition after finding that PW1 being a member of the same family was certainly competent to testify the needs of his daughter-in-law as well. It was also observed that non-examination of one of the dependents was not fatal to the case of the landlord. In appeal, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and the tenant was thus facing concurrent findings of eviction. The present revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Act questions the correctness of the impugned judgment.