PATTUKULANGARA P.N. UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the tenant who is confronting with the order of eviction passed against him in RCP No.28/2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Sulthanbathery and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta in RCA No.5/2017. (The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition). According to the petitioner, the respondent has ceased to occupy the building from 1.4.2015 onwards without any reason. Therefore, he is entitled to get an order of eviction under Sec.11 (v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ('the Act' for short).

(2.) The respondent denied the alleged cessation of occupation and contended that he has been conducting the business of pooja articles in the tenanted premises. As a matter of fact, he was out of place in the month of May, June and October 2015 in connection with the marriage of his daughter. There is no cessation of occupation of the petition schedule premises by the respondent as stated in the petition. Moreover, the bona fide need projected in the petition is a ruse to evict the respondent from the petition schedule premises. The petitioner had leased out certain rooms recently to third parties. There is no need for the petitioner to use the petition schedule premises for his business and the petition schedule premises is not suitable for using as a godown. The respondent is still doing business in the petition schedule building. The petitioner is a very influential person and he is trying to evict the respondent by force. With the aforesaid averments, the respondent prayed for dismissing the rent control petition.

(3.) On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has succeeded in proving cessation of occupation for six months immediately before the institution of the rent control petition and the need projected is bona fide, and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the proviso to Sec.11 (3) of the Act. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid concurrent findings are challenged in this revision petition.