ANWAR ALI Vs. ACHAMBATTU SHAREEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these R.C.Rs. have been filed under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act). R.C.R.No. 75/2015, has been filed by the Respondent/tenant in R.C.A No.06/2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Tirur against the order dtd. 20/01/2014 in R.C.P.No.9/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Parappanangadi. R.C.R.No.5/2019 has been filed by the petitioners/landlords against the concurrent findings of the court below dismissing the claim for eviction under Sec. 11(4)(ii). The parties in these revisions will be referred to as described in R.C.P.

(2.) The petitioners/landlords moved the RCC, Parappanangadi seeking eviction under Sec. 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The first petitioner has no job or employment and hence he requires the petition schedule rooms bona fide for starting a business in furniture. He has no other buildings in his possession for running the proposed business. The Respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso. It is also alleged that the dividing wall between two rooms out of the three rooms let out to the Respondent has been demolished and the rooms converted to a single room. This according to the petitioners has destroyed or reduced its value and utility materially and permanently. Hence eviction was sought under Sec. 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

(3.) The Respondent filed counter denying the need alleged. According to him, the need alleged is just a pretext for eviction. The Respondent also claimed the benefit of the first and the second proviso to Sub sec. (3) to Sec. 11of the Act. He also contended that, it was much before the petitioners had purchased the tenanted premises, he had been inducted into the rooms as a tenant by its prior owner. It was with the consent and permission of the prior owner, the wall in between the two rooms had been removed and converted to a single room. This removal of the intervening wall has not in any way destroyed or reduced its value or utility materially and permanently as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, he contended that the petitioners are not entitled to an order of eviction on either of the grounds prayed for.