CHANDRAN Vs. PALAKKANDY ASSAN KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision. The respondent/landlord sought eviction of the revision petitioner from the tenanted premises under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, herein after referred to as the Act. The case of the respondent was that the tenanted premises was leased out to the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 22.50 and the revision petitioner paid rent only up to the month of April 2008. His further case was that he needed the tenanted premises for the occupation of his son, who is a design engineer by profession, as he has to start his office in the tenanted premises and no other vacant room is in their possession for the proposed need. It was further alleged that the revision petitioner is not depending upon the income derived from the tenanted premises and buildings are available in the locality to shift his business.

(2.) THE revision petitioner, who resisted the claim petition, contended that the rent upto September 2008 was paid and the respondent failed to receive the rent thereafter. It was his further case that even if the rent was sent by Money Order, it was not received by the respondent. The allegation regarding the need was denied contending that it was only a ruse for eviction. It was further contended by the revision petitioner that the respondent is having so many other vacant rooms in his possession and after sending notice to one of the tenants, he got vacant possession of one room which was let out to another person for higher rent. His further case is that the tenanted premise is not suitable for alleged requirement of the son of the respondent. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

(3.) WE have heard the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner at length. We have also perused the impugned judgment.