M. K. MAHENDRAJITH Vs. C. M. MADHUSOODHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in RCP No. 68/2015 on the file of the Rent Controller/Munsiff, Thalassery. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the above Rent Control petition. The Rent Control petition was filed for eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'Act, 1965'). Hereinafter, the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent are referred in accordance with their rank before the Rent Control Court.

(2.) The case of the petitioner before the Rent Control Court can be summarised like this:- The petitioner schedule room bearing No.EP XVI 513 belonged to the petitioner. It was given on lease to the respondent by the petitioner's mother, C.M.Rohini and the rent was fixed as Rs.900 per month. The petitioner is a yoga instructor and he wants to start a consultant and treatment centre in the petition schedule room and other rooms adjacent to it to the benefit of the people suffering from permanent ailments of migraine, allergy, heart disease, blood pressure etc. The petition schedule room and other rooms are suitable for the said purpose. According to the petitioner, he can profitably conduct the said business, if he gets possession of the petition schedule room and other rooms near to it. The petitioner pleaded in the Rent Control Petition that no other vacant building is in his direct possession for conducting the said business. He contended that the need of the petitioner for the vacant possession of the petition schedule room is bonafide, genuine, and urgent. Even though a request was made to the respondent to get vacant possession of the room, the respondent refused to surrender the room. Hence, the petition was filed under Sec. 11(3) of the Act, 1965.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter in which the landlordtenant relationship and the rate of rent are admitted. According to the tenant, the bonafide need projected in the petition is only a ruse to evict the respondent. The respondent contended that the petitioner is the owner in possession of a big hall having double the size of the petition schedule room just on the adjacent right side of the petition schedule room. There are other rooms also lying vacant in the possession of the petitioner. The respondent also contended that the petitioner is not a yoga instructor or expert and he has no intention to start such a business in his old age. Therefore, the respondent contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.