KOCHUKUTTY Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act'. Landlords are the revision petitioners. According to the landlords, their father started construction of a shop room adjoining to a residential room belong to them where they were staying. Father died before the construction of the shop room. Due to financial difficulties it was not possible for further construction. One Mr.Balu offered to complete the construction. This Balu is the brother of respondent's father and respondent agreed to take the room on monthly rent of Rs.200/-. The agreement Ext. A1 was executed between the petitioners and respondent and the aforesaid Balu. As per the agreement, the respondent was handed over the vacant possession of the room after taking out the building on rent. Without raising any objection the construction was completed. Balu and the respondent started business as a tenant. As per the agreement, the rent payable by the respondent was to be adjusted towards the amount payable by the petitioners to the said Balu. The - rental arrangement was for a period of 10 years and this period expired on 31-5-1988. 'According to petitioners, they have no means of livelihood. The first petitioner had passed the SSLC examination and had learned stitching. She wants to start a business in manufacture and sale of ready made garments along with her sister, the 4th petitioner who has passed the Pre degree examination. The 5th petitioner is the brother of the petitioners 1 to 4. He had agreed to find the necessary finance to start the business. The petitioners sent a notice to the respondent to surrender the building and also to pay the . arrears of rent due to them on 15-6-1988. The respondent sent a reply notice on 11-7-88 staling that he has paid the rent to Balu and denied the bona fide needs of the petitioners staled in the notice. According to petitioners, the respondent has his own building for his business. Since the respondent refused to surrender the building, a petition was filed under S.11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act.

(2.) A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent wherein he has not disputed the ownership but questioned the bona fide needs contending that the petitioners have no intention to do any business. Further it is stated that they have no knowledge and experience in the field of manufacture and sale of ready made garments. It was further case of the respondent that the 5th petitioner is not capable of rendering any financial assistance.

(3.) Before the Rent Control Court, the first petitioner was examined as PW 1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. The respondent was examined as RW 1 and Exts.Bl to B6 were marked. The report and plan of the commissioner was marked as Ext. C1 and Clause (a). The Rent Control Court rejected the claim of benefits under S.11(3). It also was of the view that S.11(8) was not applicable. Regarding the benefit of second proviso to the tenant, the Rent Control Court expressed the view that the proviso is not applicable. Against that the petitioners approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and found that there was no bona fides. Before the lower appellate court the additional documents were produced by the petitioner.