MRS. REBEECA THOMAS Vs. C.J. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord purchased a thatched building at Cochin, in the year 1964. The respondent-tenant was then in occupation of a portion of it. He defaulted payment of rent and the landlord filed an eviction petition in 1972. The tenant was directed to vacate under Section 11(2)(b). There was an appeal (R.C.A. 18/76), and when that too was dismissed, he deposited the arrears and got the order of the Rent Control Court vacated under Section 11(2)(c). The petitioner thereafter filed R.C.O.P. 235/76 under Section 11(3) for eviction. (She filed a similar petition against the tenant occupying the other portion of the building and it is said that it has been allowed). Her case was that she had been residing at Delhi with her children and husband, and that she was desirous of getting back to Cochin where she could start permanent residence after some remodelling of the building, and could also get the children educated at the Central School.

(2.) The tenant questioned the bonafides. He contended that the petitioner who was residing at Delhi for the past 15 years with her husband could have no bonafide and reasonable desire to come down to Cochin and live separately, when the husband continued to live at Delhi. It was also contended that he was in occupation of the building for 39 years and was the therefore, protected under Section 11(17).

(3.) The Rent Control Court believed the version of the petitioner, examined as PW-1, and held that her requirement was bonafide. It disbelieved the tenant as regards the claim of continued occupation for 39 years, and held that there was nothing but his interested testimony for invoking Section 11(17). Eviction was accordingly ordered. And on appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order.