CYRIL XAVIER Vs. V V SIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent/landlord sought eviction of petition schedule building under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to short as 'the act'. In the petition it is averred that the petition schedule building was rented out to the revision petitioner/tenant in February, 1986 for a monthly rent of Rs.425/-, which was later raised to Rs.525, that the landlord and his family were in Oman from 1976 to 1995, that his wife was working as a medical officer in a private hospital at Oman and the landlord was working as Administrator in the said hospital, that on return from Oman the landlord requested the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the petition building to start a medical clinic for his wife and also to start a business for his unemployed younger son. it is further averred in the petition that the tenant was in possession of a three storeyed building, reasonably sufficient to shift his business. It is also averred that the tenant caused damages to the petition schedule building so as to reduce its value and utility, materially and permanently. All the averments were denied by the respondent/tenant and stated that he had not caused any damage to the petition schedule building. The tenant though admitted ownership and possession of his own building, denied that the building owned by him is sufficient for the purpose of his business. The case of the tenant was that the building owned by him was a residential building. He and his family are residing in the first floor and the ground floor is being used as a parking area. The tenant further contended that the need set up by the landlord was not bona fide and both the landlord and his wife are very old in age and landlord's wife is not having physical and mental health to conduct a medical clinic and the landlord was not having sufficient financial stability to start any business either for his wife or for his son. The tenant also contended that he had offered surrender of one of the rooms of the tenanted premises during 1994 itself, but the landlord did not accept the same at that time.

(2.) Before the Rent Control Court the landlord examined PWs. 1 to 4 and relied on Exts.A1 to A10 and C1 and C2. On the side of the respondent/ tenant, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined. The tenant relied on Exts.B1 to B4.

(3.) Before the Rent Control Court the contention raised under S.11(2)(b) of the Act was not pressed. The other grounds urged were considered by the Rent Control Court in the light of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the landlord. The landlord as PW 1 had given evidence in accordance with the averments contained in the petition. The evidence of the landlord was supported by PWs.2 and 3. The Rent Control Court on analysing the evidence adduced for and on behalf of the landlord found that the averments in the petition with to the possession of the alternate building by the tenant were proved. The Rent Control Court also found that the Commissioner reports, Exts.C1 and C2, proved by PW 4, would indicate that the tenant was in possession of a three storeyed building numbered as 41/2600 ABC and this building was reasonably sufficient for the tenant to shift his business. On this finding, the Rent Control Court allowed the application for eviction of the petition schedule building under S.11(4)(iii) and no finding is entered on the ground urged under S.11(3) of the Act. Against the judgment of the Rent Control Court the revision petitioner/tenant filed R.C. A. 110/2000 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after considering the entire evidence held that the finding entered by the Rent Control Court was sustainable and the eviction ordered under S.11(4)(iii) was confirmed. Even though the learned counsel for the landlord before the Appellate Authority had taken the contention with regard to the grounds urged under S.11(3) and 11(4)(ii), that contentions were rejected by the Appellate Authority as there was no cross appeal by the landlord. As the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Control Court allowed eviction of the tenanted premises under S.11(4)(iii), the revision is only confined to the eviction ordered under S.11(4)(iii) alone.