RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. GOPALA MOOTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord applied for eviction under section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act) saying that the building is required for the landlord's own occupation. Arrears of rent was also put forward as a ground but as the arrears were subsequently deposited, that ground was not pressed. On the question of requirement of the building for own occupation, the Rent Controller held that the claim is not bona fide and the petition was accordingly dismissed. But in appeal, the learned appellate authority held otherwise and allowed the petition which has been confirmed in revision by the learned District Judge.

(2.) THE claim of bona fide requirement for own occupation is challenged on the ground that the petitioner is residing in his family house which is owned by him though along with other members of the joint family; but the case of the petitioner (respondent herein) is that the joint family house is not convenient enough to accommodate all the members and that out of the 5 brothers who constitute the joint family, are married. One of them is residing outside for the obvious reason that the family house is too congested to provide accommodation to him. All the married brothers are getting children and the family is growing in size. It was in these circumstances that the present building happened to be purchased by the petitioner. Proviso (1) to Section 11 (3) says that:--

(3.) IT has also come in the evidence that one of the brothers recently shifted to another house evidently for the reason that the family house is too small and inconvenient to accommodate him. In these circumstances, the petitioner's prayer has only to be allowed. When the members constituting a joint family feel that accommodation is insufficient and for maintaining healthy relationship between members inter se, it is better that other accommodation is found, the matter has to be viewed from a practical and humane standpoint. It is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord that the latter should some how or other adjust himself in his family house and put up with difficulties and inconveniences. The tenant has no definite case in respect of the other buildings alleged to be possessed by the petitioner. In his counter, no specific case was put forward in this behalf; but in the course of his evidence he blurted out that the petitioner's family is possessed of about 30 other houses. "petitioner's family has 10-30 houses. That fact I know. " a vaguer and more indefinite contention one cannot think of. Exs. B1 and B2. certified copies of the property tax demand register were produced by the tenant at the fag end of the trial, practically after the case was closed but pending judgment. The buildings covered by Exs. B1 and B2 are, according to the petitioner, non-residential. Moreover, it was also not established before court that those buildings belong exclusively to the petitioner. They are buildings belonging to the joint family, and for reasons already stated they cannot be put forward as a circumstance against granting reliefs to the petitioner. Even if the kartha of the family or a joint family as such possessed other buildings, the junior member for that reason cannot be precluded from claiming eviction in respect of a building purchased by him for his separate residence. In the course of the evidence the counter-petitioner attempted even to challenge the bona fides of the petitioner in various other ways also. For instance he stated that the petitioner demanded from him an increment of Rs. 5/- in the rent to which he was not agreeable and it was the disgruntlement resulting from that, that actuated him to file the petition. This is evidently a baseless charge, not out forward in the counter, raised at random in the course of the examination. The order of the lower court has, in the circumstance, to be upheld.