ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. K.V.IPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed R.C.P.No.49 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad against the petitioners under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed the R.C.P. under Section 11(3) of the Act and dismissed the R.C.P. on other grounds. The tenants filed R.C.A.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, challenging the order of the Rent Control Court. The landlord filed memorandum of Cross Objection, challenging the order of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4) (v).

(2.) HEREAFTER , the parties are referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenants'.

(3.) THE plaint schedule building is in Kunnamkulam town. The tenants are running a hotel in the building. It is stated that their predecessors were also doing business in the plaint schedule building from 1969 onwards. The rent deed was executed by the tenants on 7.2.2002. The landlord and his wife are residing at Chiralayam, about 3 Kms. away from Kunnamkulam town. It is more or less admitted that Chiralayam is a remote place. It has come out in evidence that there is no hospital near the residence of the landlord and that no bus service is available in the place. The evidence disclosed that it is not possible for the landlord to get an autorikshaw or taxi from near his residence. The bonafide need set up by the landlord is that he and his wife want to reside in the plaint schedule building, so that at their old age, they would be able to go to the hospital and other places without difficulty. The landlord is now aged 81 years and his wife is aged 75 years. It has also come out in evidence that the landlord was born and brought up in the plaint schedule building and he resided there for about 38 years. In the house at Chiralayam also, he stayed continuously for 38 years. The Rent Control Court accepted the bonafide need set up by the landlord. The Rent Control Court also held that the tenants are not entitled to get the benefit of the first and second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.