VANNATHAM VEETTIL MOIDU Vs. VANNATHAM VEETTIL YOONUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This R.C.R under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has been filed by the respondent (the petitioner in the R.C.P) in R.C.A.No.26/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Vadakara. The appeal was filed by the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. against the order dtd. 18/12/2010 in R.C.P.No.28/2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Nadapuram. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.

(2.) The petitioner/landlord moved the RCC, Nadapuram seeking an order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the petition schedule room on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.77/2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Vadakara, alleged that he bona fide requires the room for starting a retail stationary business in the tenanted premises. It was alleged that he has no other buildings or rooms in his possession, suitable for the proposed need. It was also alleged that the respondent is an immensely rich person, who has several other sources of income and therefore, he cannot get the benefit of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3). The petitioner also alleged that the respondent is in possession of other suitable room and therefore he can very well shift the business being conducted in the tenanted premises to the said room. Therefore, eviction was sought under Sec. 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent denied the title of the petitioner and contended that as per an oral gift deed executed by his mother, he is the owner of the tenanted premises. It was also contended that the R.C.P. is not maintainable as the case of the petitioner is that he had obtained possession of the petition schedule room in execution proceedings initiated pursuant to the final decree passed in O.S.No.77/2004 and therefore, he cannot now claim eviction of the tenanted premises from the respondent. The respondent also denied the bona fide need and contended that the petitioner is running a successful business in vegetables in a very important commercial locality in the city. The petitioner has also other buildings and rooms suitable for the proposed need. He claimed the benefit of the first and second provisos to Sec. 11(3). He also denied the allegation of the petitioner that he is in possession of other rooms which are suitable for running his business being conducted in the tenanted premises.