ABDUL NAZAR Vs. MAMMAD KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but important question that arises for consideration in this revision filed by the tenant, who suffered an order of eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11 (3) of Kerala Act 2 of 1965 (for short 'the Act') is whether 'gumpty shop' which is the subject matter of the petition for eviction is a 'building' as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act.2. The landlord filed petition for eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11 (4)(iii) of the Act. The claim made under Section 11 (4)(iii) of the Act was disallowed by the Rent Control Court. It was not pursued thereafter. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the landlord who is the respondent in this revision is that the 'gumpty' shop (which is almost like a bunk) described in the petition schedule was originally leased out to the father of the revision petitioner by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent in August, 1990 with a stipulation to pay Rs. 50 /- as monthly rent. After the respondent/landlord purchased the whole property, a fresh lease deed (kychit) was executed on 2.2.1996 where under the revision petitioner agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- to the landlord. The landlord contended that the tenant kept the rent in arrears from January, 2003 onwards and hence sought eviction under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act. It was further contended by the landlord that he has no job or avocation and in order to eke out his livelihood, he bonafide needs the petition schedule building for starting a stationery business.

(3.) The claim was resisted by the tenant contending that no rent was kept in arrears and that the need projected by the landlord is not bonafide. It was also contended that the respondent is having other business and that he is having other buildings of his own in his possession. Further, it was contended that the tenant is depending mainly on the income from the petition schedule building for his livelihood and there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality. It was also contended that the R.C.R is not maintainable.