V.P. JOHN Vs. DISTRICT COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OVER four decades passed since a building situated on a commercial street at Kozhikode (Sweet Met Street) was rented out to the petitioner. He has been paying a rent of Rs. 70/- per month from beginning without increasing the rate despite repeated requests on the landlord. Eventually an application for eviction was filed by the landlord on certain grounds under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), main among which is the ground that he needs the building to start his own business. Petitioner (tenant) adopted different defences to resist the claim for eviction. Though the Rent Control Court dismissed the application, the Appellate Authority allowed it on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act and the District Judge, in revision did not interfere. Hence, petitioner has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) LANDLORD 's case, as found by the authorities below, is that the building was let out in 1951 on a rent of Rs. 70/- per month, and petitioner was conducting initially stationery business in the building and later a medical shop under the name "Janatha Medicals". The landlord was residing in Thiruchirapally where he was conducting a Radio Institute, but he went to Kozhikode as his ancestral home is at Chalappuram (in Kozhikode) and settled down there. Rent Control Court did not uphold the bonafides of landlord's claim to have this building for his own use. But the Appellate Authority, after finding that landlord's claim is bonafide, proceeded further and found that petitioner is not entitled to the benefits envisaged on the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application should have been dismissed as the same was filed by only one of the co-owners of the building without junction of other co-owners. In support of the said contention, reference was made to the decision in Kanhalu v. Baputty, 1991(2) KLT 598. This contention does not merit acceptance since it is well nigh settled that one co-owner without junction of other co-owners can maintain an action for eviction of the tenant (vide Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, 1976 RCR 832; Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, 1979(1) RCR 485 : AIR 1977 SC 1599 and Krishnan Nair v. Lakshmi Amma, 1986 KLT 558. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in Kunhalu's case were considered in the light of the above Supreme Court decisions and this Court in judgment dated 24.4.1992 (in O.P. 431/92) has made it clear that those observations in Kunhalu's case are only obiter.