C. RAMACHANDRA MENON Vs. KOZHIKODE APPUKUTTAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition arise out of rent control proceedings initiated against the petitioner for eviction of 1st respondent.

(2.) Petitioner is the landlord of a building in Calicut Corporation. He filed R.C. P. No. 36 of 1980 before the 2nd respondent. The building was let out to the 1st respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 62. Petitioner was working as a Freelance Cine Cameraman in Madras and it is his case that he has now shifted his residence to Calicut along with his wife. According to petitioner, his elder daughter got married and is settled in Bombay and his son completed his studies in 1980 and petitioner decided to wind up his establishment in Madras and shift to Kerala. It is further averred that the house occupied by 1st respondent, situated in Calicut, was allotted to his share in 1974 and therefore he desired to seek eviction of the tenant, from the building invoking S.11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is also alleged that being a Cameraman for Malayalam Cinema, he was mostly in Kerala, that the house occupied by 1st respondent is adjoining to the house of his father in the same compound and even if the petitioner had to leave Calicut, the presence of his parents would be a great comfort for his wife. It is stated that in the above circumstances the building is bona fide required for the residence of petitioner and his family. It is further alleged that petitioner has no other house of his own in Calicut and he was staying in Madras in a rented house, and . that it will be inconvenient for his wife to stay in Madras alone, when he happened to go out for shooting.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by 1st respondent, it is stated that petitioner was working in Singapore and different places in Madras as also in other States in India as Cameraman. It is also stated that the parents of petitioner are not old and they are keeping good health and they need not have any help from the petitioner and therefore there is no truth in the allegation that shifting of residence to Calicut was necessitated for their benefit also.