SUNNY Vs. SANDEEP GEORGE VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defeated tenant is the revision petitioner who is conducting a furniture shop on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- in the premises owned by the landlord, who sought eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

(2.) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plea of the landlord in the eviction petition is that the tenancy started in the year 2007 whereas, the contention of the tenant is that actually the tenancy had started in the year 2004. It is, therefore, submitted that with regard to the plea under Section 11(2)(b), it can be seen that as there is no case for the landlord that there was default in payment of rent from the year 2004 to 2007, it was only natural for the courts below to presume that the tenant has not defaulted the payment of rent for the disputed period i.e., 21.3.2007 to February, 2008. In this context, the learned counsel relied upon the evidence of CPW3 and CPW4. The learned counsel submitted that the tenant has set up a case that he was paying the rent to the brother of the father-in-law of the landlord viz., Mr.G.John who was examined as CPW4. CPW3 is an accountant of Mr.G.John. Rent was being paid every month through CPW3 to CPW4. CPW3 even though was having a small business in production of coconut oil, he used to write the accounts for Mr.G.John and that he was receving the rent from the petitioner and was handing over the same to the Mr.John. Therefore every time, the monthly rent due to the landlord was being sent through CPW3 to CPW4.

(3.) WITH regard to the bona fide need, the learned counsel submitted that, even though it was pleaded that the eviction is sought for the wife of the respondent to conduct business in furniture, it was wrongly stated in the eviction petition that they are residing behind the petition schedule building. It is pointed out that the husband is having business in Gulf countries and the wife also is residing with him. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that this will cast a spell on the bona fide need pleaded. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, with regard to the applicability of second proviso to Section 11(3) also, findings are not correct and there is lack of proper appreciation of evidence correctly by the Rent Control Court as well as by the Appellate Authority.