M.G.JOY Vs. K.J.MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are in revision. In the eviction petition filed by the first respondent it was alleged that he is the owner of the petition schedule building by virtue of a settlement deed executed by his mother Thresia Joseph in the year 2005. The original tenant of the petition schedule building was one M. V. George on whose death, the revision petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 8, who are the legal heirs, were in joint possession of the tenanted premises. In the year 1970, Thresia Joseph sought eviction of the original tenant in R.C.P. No. 75 of 1970 on the ground of reconstruction. Though the petition was allowed and eviction was ordered, Thresia Joseph, the predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent, could not reconstruct the building. Therefore, this Court as per order in CMP. No. 2910 of 1991 in C.R.P. No. 2576 of 1990 allowed the tenant to carry out the reconstruction. Accordingly, the building was reconstructed in the year 1992. An amount of Rs. 72,000 was fixed as construction cost by this Court and the tenant was allowed to adjust the same in the monthly rent of Rs. 15.

(2.) It was alleged that the first respondent is unemployed and he is bound to look after his family and is in bona fide need of the room for starting a bakery and fruit stall. It was further alleged that the revision petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are not at all depending upon the income derived from the business set up in the petition schedule building and no buildings are available in the locality to shift their business.

(3.) The revision petitioners, who are the 1st and 6th respondents in the R.C.P., resisted the claim petition. They have admitted the story regarding the previous eviction petition, the consequential order by this Court for reconstruction and the order to adjust the cost of construction towards monthly rent. The definite case of the revision petitioners was that they are entitled to recover the said amount from the petition schedule building. It was also averred that the predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent filed O.S. No. 15 of 2001 for fixation of fair rent, which was subsequently re-numbered as R.C.P. No. 150 of 2004. The R.C.P. was allowed on 31-1-2011 under Section 5(1) of the Act fixing fair rent at Rs. 1,326 per month w.e.f. 1-1-2001 and also for enhancement of rate of interest at 15% of rent on every three years. The appeal carried by the revision petitioners is pending and the order of the Rent Control Court has been stayed. The cost of construction is not yet completely adjusted in the rent. The period of lease will expire only on adjusting the entire cost of construction as ordered by this Court. Accordingly, the eviction petition is premature. The tenant is entitled to the protection under Section 11(9) of the Act 2 of 1965. The bona fide need of the revision petitioners was also challenged. It was further contended that the only source of livelihood of the revision petitioners is the income derived from the petition schedule building and no alternate buildings are available in the locality to shift their business.