SUMATHI Vs. RABIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenants before the courts below have come up in revision challenging the judgment in R.C.A. No. 6/2003 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (the Additional District Judge, Thalassery). The petition was filed under S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord died during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of the Rent Controller. The legal representatives got impleaded in the petition and supplemental amendments were made in the petition.

(2.) The respondent/original landlord who had been working in Saudi Arabia and was constrained to give up his job due to heath problem is now living without any kind of job or income to meet livelihood for himself and his family. The need alleged in the petition was for conducting a stationery business in the petition schedule building to eke out livelihood for himself and his family. In the petition, it is alleged that the income derived from the business carrying on in the petition schedule shop room is not the only source of income of the tenants/revision petitioners for their livelihood and suitable buildings are available in the locality to shift the business. After the death of the original landlord supplemental petitioners have been impleaded and sufficient amendments were made in the Rent Control Petition. They contended that by the death of the original landlord, they are put to impecuniousness and hence the members of the family decided to start the business which their deceased father has already desired to start in the management of Latheef, the husband of the 3rd suppl. petitioner. The said Latheef is ready and willing to manage the stationery business for and on behalf of the other legal representatives of the original deceased landlord. Thus, after the death of the landlord sufficient pleadings were incorporated in the petition to show that the need already alleged in the petition is continuing.

(3.) The revision petitioner/tenant entered appearance and filed a counter contending that the need projected in the petition is only a ruse to evict him and no other buildings are available in the locality to shift the business. Further contended that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income from the business carried on in the petition schedule building. In the additional counter, the revision petitioner/tenant further contended that by the death of the original landlord bona fide need stated in the petition ceased to exist and legal representatives of the deceased cannot prosecute the petition on the same ground. According to the tenant, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a fresh petition advancing the bona fide need of the legal representatives, if any.