RIYAS Vs. FOUSIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in RCP No.89 of 2019 on the file of Rent Control Court, Vatakara. He is impugning the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara, in RCA No.62 of 2021, by which the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court in the RCP was confirmed.

(2.) The parties are referred hereinafter according to their status in the RCP. The landlord filed RCP No.89 of 2019, along with her husband, under Sec. 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), for evicting the respondent/tenant on bona fide need of her husband. According to the petitioners, the petition schedule shop rooms were leased out to the respondent, as per rent agreement dtd. 28/3/2017 for a monthly rent of Rs.3,000.00. The 2nd petitioner husband of the landlord returned from abroad after cancelling his Visa on 24/12/2017. He is having no source of income for his livelihood and he is in bona fide need of the petition schedule shop rooms to start a cafeteria there. They have no other shop rooms in their possession to start their business. The 2nd petitioner-husband is depending on the 1st petitioner, with regard to the petition schedule shop rooms. They further contended that the respondent is not doing any business in the petition schedule shop rooms and he is not depending upon the income derived from the business in the petition schedule rooms for his livelihood. Now the petition schedule rooms are used for parking motor vehicles. Moreover, other shop rooms are available in that locality, suitable for the respondent to shift his business.

(3.) The respondent/tenant disputed the ownership of the 1st petitioner as well as the tenancy arrangement between the 1st petitioner and the respondent. The bona fide need projected by the petitioners were also disputed by the respondent and according to him, the 2nd petitioner, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, is having business abroad and also in Bangalore, and so his case that he is intending to start a cafeteria in the petition schedule rooms is not correct. Moreover, the petitioners are having vacant possession of several other shop rooms. The petition schedule shop rooms are now used by the respondent as a godown for his cement business, and he is depending upon the income earned form that business for his livelihood, and no other vacant shop rooms are available in that locality suitable to shift his godown.