SAI SERVICE STATION LTD Vs. DILEEP GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed R.C.P.No.19 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kodungallur for eviction of the revision petitioners-tenants under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The R.C.P. was allowed. An appeal was filed by the petitioners as R.C.A.No.11 of 2018 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Irinajalakuda under Sec. 18(1)(b) of the Act and that ended in dismissal. The petitioners challenge the said judgment as well as the order of the Rent Control Court in this revision petition filed under Sec. 20 of the Act.

(2.) The respondent and his brother Deepak Ganesh are the owners of the petition schedule building. They let out it to the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.45,000.00 on 1/12/2009. The respondent, who was working abroad, has come back and he wants to start an automobile business in the petition schedule building. His brother Deepak Ganesh has consented for the same. Hence, he demanded vacant possession of the building on the ground of bonafide need.

(3.) The petitioners resisted the petition contending as follows; The respondent as well as his brother are working abroad at Abudhabi. They have no intention to start an automobile business as claimed. The petitioners put up constructions of substantial nature and installed machinery and related amenities with the knowledge of the landlords spending more than one crore rupees, since the lease was for a period of 15 years. The attempt of the respondent now to evict the petitioners is with the object of helping someone else and also to garner the benefits on account of the proposed acquisition of a part of the property. Even he tried to forcibly evict the petitioners, constraining the petitioners to file O.S.No.1585 of 2016 seeking an injunction. The petitioners are conducting a show room and authorised service centre of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and in the event of eviction now, they would be put to much loss and inconvenience. Without junction of the other co owner, the respondent has no right to claim eviction.