KRISHNAN THAMPI Vs. SANKARADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord in R.C.P.23/1990 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed the petition for eviction of the respondent / tenant from the scheduled building under S.11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition on both the grounds. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 122/1991 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Rent Control Appellate Authority by the impugned order set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and remitted the matter back to the court below for fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the landlord has come up with this appeal.

(2.) The petition scheduled building forms part of a line building belonging to the revision petitioner. The respondent is in occupation of the building as a tenant with effect from 1982. According to the landlord initially, the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per mensem and it was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 250/- with effect from September, 1986. Alleging that the tenant kept the rent in arrears since 1986 and the building is bona fide required for occupation of the revision petitioners mother inlaw and her two sons, the petition was filed on the grounds under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The respondent / tenant resisted the petition contending that the need urged by the landlord is not genuine. The rate of rent was also disputed. According to the respondent, the amount of rent fixed was Rs. 100/- per month from 1982 onwards which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 150/- per month. It was also contended by the respondent that the rent had been paid till December, 1989.

(3.) Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their rival contentions. The evidence consists of the depositions of PW 1 to PW 3 and CW1, Exts. A1 to A4, B1 to B5 and Ext. C1. On an elaborate consideration of the evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the respondent defaulted in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- from July, 1986 till December, 1989. The Rent Control Court also found that the need urged by the landlord is genuine. But, the Appellate Authority found that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rate of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month is without any basis. On the basis of the representation made by the counsel for the respondent herein before the Appellate Authority that the mother inlaw of the petitioner is no more, the Appellate Authority remitted the matter back to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal.