CHANDRAN Vs. THANKAMMA BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. He challenged the order in R.C.A.No.19/2017 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta contending that the order is contrary to the evidence and that the absence of bonafide need was not appreciated by the courts below. According to the revision petitioner, the availability of other rooms, in the same building and the failure to state the special reasons required under 1st proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] ought to have resulted in the dismissal of the rent control petition itself and the findings recorded by both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are erroneous and are liable to be set aside.

(2.) The genesis of the dispute between the parties is based on a lease made in 1983 with a monthly rent of Rs.60/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.625/- on 01.11.1986. The landlord filed R.C.P. No. 4/2016 before the Rent Control Court, Sulthan Bathery, alleging that the tenant defaulted in the payment of rent from 01.11.1986 and an amount of Rs.2,17,500/- is in arrears towards the rent and also that she requires the building under section 11(3) of the Act. It was pleaded that the scheduled building is suitable for a textile business, since after the death of landlord's husband, who was the sole breadwinner of the family, the responsibility of taking care of the family fell upon her shoulders. She pleaded further that the adjacent room though belonged to her mother-in-law, she had agreed to give possession of that room also for the proposed textile business. She also stated that there are other vacant rooms in the locality, which the tenant could shift to and that the tenant is not depending upon the business, for his livelihood. After the statutory notice, R.C.P. No.4/2016 was filed before the Rent Control Court, Sultan Batheri.

(3.) The tenant in his objection stated that the building was taken on lease from a person by name Annakkutty and he paid the rent up to October, 2015 to the said Annakkutty. It was also pleaded that the landlord had illegally locked the tenant from three rooms in 2015 and filed the eviction petition thereafter and that there are no bonafides in the claim put forth. According to him, he depends on the business in the scheduled building for his livelihood and also that he does not have any other buildings to house his business. He also contended that the landlord has more than 30 acres and that the need projected is only a pretext for evicting the tenant. He denied the existence of any arrears of rent.