THATTANKANDIL BABURAJ Vs. K.VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has come up in this revision petition challenging the order of eviction passed against him as also the judgment affirming the same in appeal.

(2.) The subject matter of the proceedings is a premises taken on lease by the tenant from the landlady for conducting jewellery business. There are a few other rooms as well in the building of which the tenanted premises is a part. It was alleged by the landlady in the eviction petition that the tenant is not paying rent from the year 2012 onwards and that she needs the premises for starting a ladies tailoring shop. It is stated in the eviction petition that the landlady does not have in her possession any other premises where she could conduct the proposed business. It is also stated by the landlady in the eviction petition that her son who is also a co-owner of the premises, is doing stationery business in the only vacant premises in her possession in the building. It is on the aforesaid basis that the landlady sought eviction of the tenant under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The tenant raised objections in the proceedings contending, among others, that rent is not in arrears and that the need set out by the landlady for eviction is not bona fide. According to the tenant, the landlady has in her possession other vacant premises, if at all she wants to set up a ladies tailoring shop and that she does not have any experience in the ladies tailoring business.

(3.) The Rent Control Court repelled the contentions of the tenant and ordered eviction under both heads, holding that the rent of the premises is in arrears; that the need set out by the landlady is bona fide and that the landlady is not in possession of any other premises where she could carry on the proposed business. The tenant challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeal. After the disposal of the eviction petition, the landlady instituted a proceedings for eviction of another tenant in the very same building as R.C.P No.77 of 2016 for starting a DTP Computer centre for her son. A copy of the eviction petition in R.C.P No.77 of 2016 which was produced by the tenant in the appeal was accepted in evidence by the Appellate Authority as Ext.B5. It is also stated by the landlady in the eviction petition in R.C.P No.77 of 2016 that in one of the rooms in the same building, she is conducting stationery and cool drinks business. On the basis of the said averment, it is seen that the tenant has argued before the Appellate Authority that the case set out by the landlady that she has no avocation and that she therefore needs the premises for conducting ladies tailoring shop, cannot be accepted as a bona fide need. The Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court, rejecting the said contention. As noted, the tenant is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the authorities below.