JOSEPH Vs. GEORGE K ITTOOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Secs. 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 (for short the Act ). Rent Control Court allowed eviction on both the grounds. On appeal by the tenant Appellate Authority reversed the finding under Section 11 (3). Aggrieved by the same this revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) Petition schedule building originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner. Building was taken on rent by the tenant for Rs. 100/- per month by executing a rent deed dated 6.10.1980. Property was gifted to the petitioner by his mother as per Ext A1 gift deed dated 27.7.1989. After the gift petitioner filed application for eviction on the ground that he requires the; building for conducting his own business in hardwares. Petitioner stated that he has studied upto B.Sc has no other avocation. Hence building was bonafide required by him for conducting the business. It was stated that the petitioner-landlord has no other building in his possession and ownership in the locality and consequently he has satisfied all the ingredients of the first proviso to Section 11(3). It is also contented that tenant is not eking his livelihood from the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises. Further it was stated that other buildings are available in the locality. Consequently tenant is not entitled to the benefit of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) The tenant on the other hand contended that the building was taken out on rent in 1986. Original landlady demanded enhanced rent. Since the same was objected to by the tenant a gift deed was executed in favour of her son in 1989 and the son later filed the present petition for eviction. According to the tenant, the said transaction is a sham transaction. Gift deed was executed with malafide intention to evict the tenant. Tenant alleged that the landlord s mother has got other buildings which can be used for conducting business. There is no other suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to conduct business. Tenant also stated there are other rooms belonging to the petitioners adjacent to the petition schedule room which are vacant and the petitioner could have utilised the said room for his business. Consequently it was contended that the ground for eviction is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3).