(1.) The tenant in R.C.P. No. 37 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur, who was the respondent in R.C.A. No. 149 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petition schedule building is situated in second floor of the building owned by the landlord. In the ground floor of the building, Dena Bank is the tenant. In the first floor, M/s. Cannanore Drug Lines, a partnership firm who is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 35 of 2005 from which R.C.R. No. 287 of 2012 arose, is the tenant. The building is situated in the heart of Kannur town.
(2.) The petition schedule building (second floor) was rented out to the tenant as per Ext. A1 agreement dated 15.1.2000. The agreement is an unregistered agreement. The lease is for a term of five years. There is a renewal clause in the document on condition of enhancement of rent by 25%.
(3.) The bona fide need put forward by the landlord is that the building is required for the occupation of his son Dr. Makthoum who was undergoing his higher studies in London at the relevant time. It was alleged that the son of the landlord wanted to start a clinic in the petition schedule building. The tenant contended that the bona fide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine. According to the tenant, the tenancy commenced in 1978 and subsequently, Ext. A1 lease deed was executed. Based on the renewal clause in Ext. A1 lease deed, the tenant paid enhanced rent in the bank account of the landlord and the landlord received the same. Therefore, there is a renewal of the term of the lease deed. The tenant contended that the Rent Control Petition is, therefore, premature, since the term of the lease would expire only on 31.12.2010. It was also contended that the son of the landlord is settled abroad and he is not depending on the landlord. The tenant also raised a contention that the landlord is having other buildings and, therefore, the first proviso to Section 11(3) is attracted. It was also contended that the tenant is entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.