CHERIAN Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed B.R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1972 before the Rent Control Court, Kottayam, for eviction of the respondents from a building situated within the Kottayam Municipality, which one P. T. Antony, the deceased father of respondents 1 to 13 and the husband of the 14th respondent had taken on lease on a rental of Rs. 150. P. T. Antony died on 14th July 1970. The petition was filed under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, on the ground that the respondents had ceased to occupy the building and also on the ground that the petitioner required the building bona fide for starting a rubber business for his third son, Raju Cherian. The petition proceeded to state that Raju "Cherian, then aged 23rd years, was without arty job and was dependent, of the petitioner, and as such, it was necessary to provide him with a job. According to the petitioner, the building was rented to the deceased P. T. Antony for the specific purpose of conducting a wine

(2.) The respondents contested the claim. Respondents 1 and 2, in their counter filed by them, admitted the lease arrangement with P. T. Antony, but contended that there was no specific agreement or understanding that the building would be used only for the purpose of conducting wine store. The wine store was being conducted in the building till the licence thereof expired in April 1970. Thereafter, P. T. Antony made arrangements for starting a stationery business. The necessary furniture and other articles required for the business were collected by P. T. Antony for starting the stationery business. After his death the stationery business was started in the building by respondents 1 and 2. The rent was being paid by respondents 1 and 2 for and on behalf of the respondents till March 1971. It was, thereafter, that O. S. No. 133 of 1971 was filed by the petitioner. After the filing of the suit even though rent was tendered it was not being accepted by the petitioner. The respondents denied that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to start a business for his third son. The petitioner's third son was neither trained in rubber business nor has he any aptitude to such business. The building, according to the respondents, was not fit for starting rubber business inasmuch as it lacks facilities for storing articles and also for loading and unloading them in lorries. The petitioner has other convenient buildings for starting a business for his son. The respondents denied that there was any understanding that the building would be surrendered on their ceasing to conduct the wine store. They also stated that on obtaining licence a wine store was restarted from 1st April 1972. It was not correct that the building was left unoccupied from April 1970 to March 1971, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to eviction of the respondents either under S.11(3) or under S.11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

(3.) The Rent Control Court held, that the petitioner's case that he required the building bona fide for starting a business for his son was not established. The court also held, that the petitioner had other buildings available for starting a business for his son. The claim for eviction under S.11(3) was, therefore, declined. The court, however, held that since the liquor business was stopped in March 1970, and was restarted only from April, 1972 and the building was unoccupied from April 1970 to March 1971, the petitioner was entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Although a claim for eviction has also been made on the ground of arrears of rent the Rent Control Court disallowed eviction on that ground holding that rent was not in arrears.