C.P SHAFI Vs. MARIYAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are the revision petitioners. They filed the Rent Control Revisions under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), challenging the the common judgment dtd. 13/12/2016 in R.C.A.Nos.112/2015 and 113/2015 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (III Additional District Judge, Kozhikode) arising from the common order dtd. 25/6/2015 in R.C.P.Nos.156/2013 & 157/2013 of the Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II, Kozhikode and the judgment dtd. 20/1/2016 in R.C.A.No.106/2014 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (III Additional District Judge, Kozhikode) arising from the order dtd. 13/6/2014 in RCP No. 158/2013 of the Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II, Kozhikode. The Appellate Authority confirmed the orders of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-II), Ernakulam, in favour of the respondent-landlady under Sec. 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) Rent control petitions were filed by the landlady under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) (in RCP No. 158/2013) and under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) (in RCP No.156/2013 & 157/2013)of the Act. The petition schedule buildings belong to Mariyambi, the respondent herein and Simi Ummer Koya. It is stated by the landlady that the rent control petitions were filed after obtaining consent from the co-owner Simi Ummerkoya. Rent was kept in arrears by the tenants. The need projected by the landlady is for the landlady's husband named Muhammed Arif, to start a business in furniture. It was also stated that the landlady's husband depends on her and the other co-owner for the petition schedule building. The tenants have sublet the petition schedule building without the consent of the respondent/landlady herein or the co-owner. The Rent Control Court allowed the eviction petitions under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) and dismissed the prayer for eviction under Sec. 11(4)(i) on the ground that sub-lease was not proved. The tenants went in appeal and the appellate authority affirmed the order of the Rent Control Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants, assailing the orders of eviction, argued that the rent control petitions were filed by the landlady suppressing material facts. Mr.Mohammed Arif, landlady's husband, is the owner of shop rooms bearing Nos.21/860, 21/861, 21/862, 21/863, 21/864, 21/865 and 21/866 and a big hall in ward No.21 of Kozhikode Corporation and is already in possession of the rooms and has filed rent control petitions for getting vacant possession of shop room Nos. 21/860, 21/863 and 21/864 stating the very same bona fide need for starting furniture business. The learned counsel further submitted that the need projected by the landlady is only a ruse to evict the tenants and there is no bona fide need as alleged. The landlady's husband is not dependent on the respondent herein or the co-owner for the petition schedule rooms to start furniture business. The petitioners in the respective rent control petitions raised similar objections. They contended that the building to which the petition schedule shop rooms form part, is not sufficient to meet the requirements of a furniture shop and that the need is not bona fide. It is totally unsuitable to start a business as proposed by the respondent. It was further contended that the tenants are dependent for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises and there are no suitable rooms available in the locality for them to carry on the same.