CHACKO P. MATHEW Vs. KUTTAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioners are the landlords.Eviction was sought for under S.11(2 )(b ),11(3)and 11(4 )(i)of Act 2 of 1965.Rent Control Court allowed eviction on all grounds.Matter was taken in appeal by the tenants.Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Control Court.Hence this revision.

(2.) PETITION schedule building was rented out for conducting a tailoring shop by the father of the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs 100/ -.Rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs 120/ - in January 1986.Rent was in arrears from February 1987 onwards.First petitioner was employed in Indian Aluminium Company Limited and he retired from service on 30.9.1987.He wanted to start business in electrical goods in the petition schedule room.He was not in possession of any other room.First petitioner therefore bona fide required the premises for his own occupation.Further it was stated that though second respondent tenant was earlier conducting the tailoring shop subsequently he started another tailoring shop in K.A.P.Commercial Centre,Alwaye.First respondent was also later employed in the Good Shed at Alwaye and third respondent got employment as lecturer in the U.C.College,Alwaye.Consequently respondents tenants were not conducting any business in the tenanted premises.Further it was noticed that second respondent was not conducting the tailoring shop and he sublet the premises to his brother by name Surendran.Consequently eviction was sought for under S.11(4 )(i ).Further it was also stated that the landlord was not in possession of any other room in the locality and that the tenant is not eking his livelihood on the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises.Further it was also stated that various other rooms are available in the locality in which tenant could conduct his business.

(3.) IN order to establish his case,first petitioner got himself examined as P.W.I and second respondent was examined as RW.1.We will first examine whether the Appellate Authority was justified in interfering with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under S.11(3)of the Act.First petitioner was employed in Indian Aluminium Company and he retired from service on 30.9.1987.After retirement wanted to conduct some business and he thought of conducting business in electrical goods.We find first petitioner had passed electrical diploma course and he has got experience in dealing with electrical goods while he was employed in Indian Aluminium Company.We are not prepared to say the need projected by the landlord is not genuine.It is not unusual that a retired person wants to conduct some business after his retirement to argument his income.We may now examine as to whether the first petitioner has got any other building in his possession to conduct business in electrical goods.We may indicate in the Rent Control court no issue was raised on the first proviso to S.11(3 ).In Para.6 of the objection filed to the Rent Control Petition second respondent has stated as follows: bisins tufNzem ¦i} te9 Aytinu p ñiy muRik] h{ji6aruef eekvw8iluH.1fu8kal8uEpaluM h{ji6a{ muRi 1nY{6 vafk6 ekafu8i7uH. The above mentioned statement made in the objection was not supported by j any evidence either oral or documentary.It is pertinent to note that when the tenant was examined as RW -1 he had no case in chief examination that landlord has got other building in his possession.A Division Bench of this court in Raghvan v. Govindan Nambiar (I.L.R.1995(2)Kerala 587 ):: 1995 ICO 2411 held that the primary burden to show that landlord has a building of his own in possession is of course on the tenant unless it is an admitted fact.When once it is shown that the landlord is in possession of another building of his own in the same town or village the burden swings over to the landlord to establish special reasons.We find in this case no issue was raised before the Rent Control court under the first proviso to S.11(3 ).No evidence,either oral or documentary,was adduced by the tenant to show that landlord has got other building in his possession so as to defeat the claim under S.11(3 ).