KANNAMPATHI RAGHAVAN Vs. M ABDUL SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground of arrears of rent and the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority under sub Section 3 of Section 11 reversing the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on the above ground.

(2.) AT the very outset, it was submitted by Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that as regards the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) concurrently it will suffice that this Court grants reasonable time for invocation of the provisions under Section 11(2)(c) and that this Court need be concerned only with the correctness of the eviction order passed on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11. Sri.Gopikrshnan Nambiar further submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction on the ground under Section 11(3) is contrary to the evidence on record. According to him, the need was to conduct a business in partnership in bakery items as well as in fruit juice by utilising the entire building which consists of two rooms in the ground floor and three rooms in the first floor. As regards one room in the ground floor it was submitted that another Rent Control Petition is instituted. To the knowledge of the revision petitioner, no such Rent Control Petition is instituted so far. As regards the another room which was in occupation of another tenant by name Hari, the case of the landlord as spoken to by PW1, and PW2 mother of the landlords was that Sri.Hari had agreed to vacate the building at any time. Sri.Nambiar submitted that the evidence was that the proposed partnership will be managed by one Abdul Majeed who was presently gainfully employed in a Gulf country. The suggestion that Sri.Majeed was drawing a monthly salary of ` 2 lakhs was not denied. It was admitted by Pws.1 and 2 that the above said Majeed's children are studying in schools at Gulf. No explanation was offered by PW1 or PW2 as to why at least Majeed did not mount the box for giving oral evidence. On the contrary the definite stand taken by Pws.1 and 2 was that they do not propose to examine Sri.Majeed or Sri.Hari or the proprietor of Sruthi Musicals, the tenant against whom another RCP is allegedly filed. The appreciation of evidence, oral or circumstantial by the learned Appellate Authority was faulty. The non-examination of at least Majeed, the person who is to conduct the business was fatal.

(3.) WE notice another aspect of the matter. The building though small is situated on a prime commercial locality at Kanjangad. According to us, the monthly rent of ` 500/- presently paid by the revision petitioner is very low. WE therefore, are inclined to re-fix the rent (occupational charges payable by the revision petitioner with effect from 01/09/11) at ` 1,000/- per mensem. The revision petitioner shall pay rent at the above rate till such time as he surrenders the building.