PATINHAREKANDY BABU Vs. M. SAVITHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the first respondent in RCP No. 400/2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur, and the first appellant in RCA No. 49/2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge-IV, Thalassery. Respondents 1 to 8 herein are the petitioners in the above Rent Control Petition. The Rent Control Petition was filed against the revision petitioner and respondents 9 to 12. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the rent control court). The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (for short 'the Act 1965').

(2.) The petition schedule building belonged to Odakayi Narayanan, who is the husband of the first petitioner. After his death, the petition schedule building devolved upon the first petitioner and her children who are supplementary petitioners 2 to 8. The petition schedule building was originally taken on lease by Mooliyil Balan. After the death of Mooliyil Balan, the tenancy right devolved upon his wife Shantha and her children who are his legal heirs. Shantha also died and hence, the tenancy right is now with the children who are respondents 1 to 5 before the Rent Control Court. The respondents are conducting a hotel in the petition schedule building namely Rashmi Hotel. The supplementary petitioner No.2 Sasikala and supplementary petitioner No.5 Sreekala are qualified tailors and they were conducting tailoring and garment making units under the small scale industries scheme in the building bearing door No.KL7/368 of Kannur Municipality. Since the building was demolished, they were compelled to stop their business. Sasikala is a widow. She has no employment or income from any property for her livelihood. Another daughter Sreekala is a spinster. She has no employment or income for her livelihood. Sasikala and Sreekala want to conduct tailoring and garment making business in the petition scheduled building. According to them, there is no other vacant building in the possession of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners contended that they require the petition schedule building for their bonafide purposes. According to them, the petition schedule building is suitable for conducting tailoring and garment making unit. According to the petitioners, they approached the tenant demanding to surrender vacant possession of the building for the bonafide need. Since the respondents are not prepared to surrender the vacant possession of the building, the rent control petition is filed.

(3.) The respondents entered appearance before the rent control court and filed a counter statement. In the counter statement, the contentions of the petitioners are disputed. According to the respondents, when the original tenant Balan was alive and after his death, the first petitioner and other legal heirs used to file petition after petition on false grounds for harassing the legal heirs of Balan, when they conducted the hotel business peacefully. They contended that the landlords intend to compel the tenants to agree to their demand for an unreasonable increase in the rent. The respondents submitted that there is no element of bonafides in the plea of Sasikala and Sreekala. It is submitted that they are not qualified for conducting tailoring and garment making unit. They do not need the business in tailoring and garment making unit. It is the case of the respondents that Sasikala and Sreekala are otherwise well employed and wealthy. The legal heirs of Narayanan got several buildings in their possession and ownership. The respondents submitted that the petition schedule building is a fairly spacious one with all facilities for conducting hotel business. It is also contended that, even if the need of Sasikala and Sreekala are bonafide, so much spacious buildings like the petition schedule building is not at all required for their purposes.