PUTHANPURAYIL ASHRAF Vs. PRASEED BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was the appellant in RCA No.192/2017 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (in short 'Appellate Authority'), Vatakara. The respondent in this revision petition was the respondent 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.34/2016. The parties are for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigate status in the Rent Control Petition (RCP) as 'petitioner' and 'respondent'.

(3.) The petitioner had filed the RCP against the respondent, inter alia, pleading as follows: The petition schedule shop rooms (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'shop rooms') were let out on rent as per rental agreements executed by the father of the petitioner. After death of the father, the mother of the petitioner was administering the estate of the deceased. While so, the brother of the respondent had approached the petitioner's mother and made her to execute a rent bonds in respect of the shop rooms. Despite execution of the rent bonds, the respondent continued in possession of the shop rooms. He paid rent up to the month of January, 2016. The petitioner owns six private buses. He desires to expand his business by starting a travel agency in the shop rooms. Therefore, he bona fide needs the shop rooms for his own occupation. Although he owns two buildings in the same locality, the shop rooms in the buildings are in the occupation of tenants. The petitioner has no other vacant shop rooms in his possession. Although he sent a notice demanding vacant possession of the shop rooms, the brother of the respondent denied any relationship with the petitioner. The respondent also contended that he had agreed to purchase the shop rooms from the petitioner's father, and that he paid an advance sale consideration of Rs 7,50,000/-. The petitioner denied the said agreement. The respondent had also filed OS No.3/2016 seeking a decree for specific performance. The tenant is not depending on the income derived from the shop rooms. There are plenty of vacant shop rooms available in the locality which are sufficient for the respondent to conduct his business. Hence the petitioner prayed for an order of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').