JOHN Vs. ABRAHAM VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed RCP Nos. 75/2007, 76/2007 and 77/2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenants occupy rooms in an old line building. The tenants in RCP No. 75/2007 are in occupation of two rooms while the tenants in other two cases occupy one room each. There are three other rooms in the line building, two of which were occupied by the Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society. The landlord got vacant possession of the two rooms which were occupied by the Rubber Marketing Cooperative Society. The other room is also in the possession of the landlord. Thus out of total number of seven rooms, the landlord has got vacant possession of three rooms. The landlord did not press the contention under Section 11 and therefore the only point that was considered by the courts below was under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court and the appellate authority found that the bonafide need put forward by the landlord is genuine. The authorities below also held that the tenants failed to prove the ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) The landlord contended that the petition scheduled buildings are bonafide required for commencing a business in hardwares. He contended that all the seven rooms in the line building can be utilised for his proposed business. He also stated that the rear side of the petition scheduled buildings can be used for stacking the hardwares.

(3.) The tenants contended that the landlord is a very affluent man and he and his wife are running other business. It was also contended by the tenants that the landlord is having other buildings.