VELLUVANKANDY KAMALKUTTY Vs. R. M. MUNEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the petitioner/landlord in RCP No.95 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Controller (Prl. Munsiff), Kannur. The respondent herein is the respondent/tenant in the above petition(hereinafter the revision petitioner and respondent are mentioned as landlord and tenant, respectively.

(2.) The landlord filed the above petition for eviction u/s.11(2)(b), 11(3), and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'Act').

(3.) The case of the landlord is that the petition schedule building belongs to him, and the same was leased out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- by a coolichiton 20.3.2004. The tenant agreed to increase the rate of rent at the rate of 10% every year. On 1.10.2005, the tenant took a room situated on the back of the building also on rent of Rs.500/-. The rent of the room situated at the back was increased at Rs.550/- from 1.11.2006 onwards. Thus the tenant paid rent @ Rs.3,457/- till 30.9.2009. It is also alleged that the tenant caused substantial damages to the petition schedule building, causing a reduction in utility and use of the building. According to the landlord, the value of the building has been considerably reduced due to the highhanded mischief committed by the tenant. It is also the case of the landlord that the tenant used the building negligently and in a wreck less manner. According to the landlord, there is default in paying rent also. The landlord also contended that he requires the building for conducting a provisional-cum-stationary business. The landlord submitted that the tenant does not depend on the petition schedule building for his livelihood. He also stated that he is not in possession of any other vacant building. The landlord contends that the vacant buildings are there in the near vicinity for the use of the tenant. Hence, the petition for eviction was filed under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) (ii) of the Act.