M K CHETTIAR Vs. VENKITA KRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the tenant and respondent is the landlord of the petition schedule building. Landlord filed the petition, R.C.P. No. 115 of 1993, before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, for eviction of the tenant under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the petitioner / landlord, the tenant, who is an advocate, is in default of payment of rent from December, 1992. He has also sublet the room to one Mohan. It was further stated that the room is needed for the occupation of landlords younger son who is depending on him. He has completed his B.Sc. Course, Typewriting etc. and is unemployed. The petition schedule room is required for starting a typewriting institute. The ground floor of the building is divided into fifteen small rooms, out of which thirteen rooms are rented out to one M.K. Dandapani. The other two rooms available in the ground floor cannot be made use for any purpose as the said rooms are the sole means of entrance to the other thirteen rooms on the rear side. It is also stated that the tenant has other source of income for his livelihood and that he is an official receiver and has another office room adjacent to the court building. In the amendment application which was allowed, landlord stated that one of the vacant rooms in the ground floor is used as entrance to the other thirteen rooms rented out to Mr. M.K. Dandapani and the other room is subject matter of a dispute between the petitioner and one Retnam Venugopal, who is the owner of the remaining part of the building.

(2.) PWs. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the landlord. On behalf of the tenant, the tenant himself was examined. The Rent Control Court found that landlord is entitled to evict the tenant only under S.11(3) of the Act. After considering the evidence in detail, the qualifications of the petitioners younger son, ability to conduct a typewriting institute etc. it was found that the room is bona fide needed for occupation of petitioners son who is depending on him. Petitioner was not able to prove the case for eviction under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The eviction was allowed under S.11(3) of the Act.

(3.) The contention of the tenant was that he is depending mainly on the income derived from the trade or business conducted in the petition schedule room for his livelihood and no other suitable building is available in the locality was not considered by the Court as advocates cannot claim that benefit. Second proviso to S.11(3) reads as follows: