ACHUTHA PAI Vs. VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Rent Control Court, Alappuzha had found justification in the application for own occupation of a building let out, in R. C. P. No. 1/1988 and had directed eviction of the tenant, but in the appeal filed by the tenant, the judgment got reversed as the appellate court was of the view that bonafide need had not been established. This revision has been filed in the aforesaid circumstances, challenging the order of the appellate authority.

(2.) SRI. Raman Pillai, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the appellate authority committed an error in coming to the finding that there was no bonafide need established. SRI. Parameswara Panicker appearing for the respondent held that no interference was warranted in exercise of the power conferred under S. 20 of the act. The brief facts, which are relevant might be given below; The landlord who is an elderly person has two buildings in the town, and he occupies one of them himself, with family members. He had urged eviction of the rented building, for the reason that his married son was in need of premises for occupation who was dependent on him for the purpose. The son had got married on 29. 4. 1984 and in 1986, a notice had been issued to the respondent pointing out that the building may be vacated. There was no written reply, and according to him, the tenant had offered to move out expeditiously. As this did not happen, ultimately, the application has been filed. The tenant had initially denied the title of the landlord, and he opposed the application tooth and nail. The landlord and his son had tendered evidence. Respondent had also examined himself. The lower authority held that bona fide requirement had been made out. The authority had also overruled the subsidiary contentions of the tenant. It has also come in evidence that a suit for specific performance had been filed by the tenant as O. S. No. 64/1988 before the Sub Court of alappuzha, on the plea of an oral agreement, but the suit had been dismissed and confirmed in appeal.

(3.) THE first reasoning given by appellate authority is that after a few months of the marriage of PW2 in 1984, the building had been let out. THE argument upheld was that if as a matter of fact, there was need for own occupation, a tenant might not have parted with the property, but would have arranged occupation. Of course, relying on the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, it is stated that immediately after the marriage, the wife of PW2 was insisted for separate residence. But this cannot be taken in isolation. THE reason that had been urged in 1986, and again reiterated in the plaint in 1988 was that they required separate occupation. PW2 was having wife and a child. It had also come out in evidence that the landlord has other children. THEy occupy a small house and it was hardly sufficient to accommodate them in its condition especially when children made visits. When it is admitted that there was marriage in 1984, it is not difficult to comprehend that need had arisen thereafter and the need might have increased as the years passed by making it a pressing necessity. Further, the written statement, plea and trend of cross examination indicate that in 1984, the plaint schedule property was in a most dilapidated condition unfit for occupation. THE claim of the tenant was that he had spent more than eleven thousand rupees for repair to make it worthy of living at that time. We may extract the relevant portion of the objections as following: ". . During 1984, the above said building was kept vacant as it was not fit for residence, and in dilapidated condition. At that time, the counter petitioner was badly in need of an accommodation and on request, petitioner allowed the counter petitioner to make necessary repairs, with a definite understanding that the amount so spent will be reimbursed on a future date. THE petitioner agreed to give the building to the counter petitioner for 1 year on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- p. m. Accordingly, counter petitioner made necessary repairs to the building spending Rs. 11, 500/- from his account and convinced the petitioner the amount so spent by showing vouchers and bills etc. "