MATHEW V: THOMAS Vs. SALI SUNNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord (Petitioner in the rent control petition) filed the petition under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in short, the Act'. The Rent Control Court, Thiruvalla allowed the eviction under S.11(3) if the Act, and dismissed the prayer under other two grounds. The tenant filed R.C.A. No. 1/93. The Appellate Authority, Pathanamthitta dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

(2.) The brief facts for disposal of the case are that, the tenant is in occupation of the centre room in the building having three rooms by paying an enhanced rent of Rs. 75/- per month. The landlord has passed B.Sc. examination with Mathematics as main subject and was teaching in a tutorial college, and his wife is B.Sc., B.Ed. Both of them worked as teachers in Africea. Two years prior to the filing of the petition, they returned and started residing in the building situated behind the petition schedule room. Both the husband and wife bona fide require the petition schedule room for starting a tutorial college. The other two rooms, on either side of the petition schedule room,, have been given vacant possession by the respective tenants to the landlord. Due to the careless use of the room, the floor and walls of the room are damaged by the tenant. There are other vacant rooms available in the locality for conducting Welding business which the tenant is doing in the petition schedule room. The tenant also has got other means of livelihood. The rent is due from the tenant with effect from July 1988. Hence, the petition.

(3.) When the rent control petition was pending for adducing evidence, and while the landlord was cross examined as P.W.1, he fainted and fell down. Subsequently he died. Therefore, his wife and two children were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4. They pursued the rent control petition and completed the evidence.