K.C. MATHEW Vs. D. ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady, and also the tenants, in a proceeding for eviction brought under Section 11 (3) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 are now before this Court in revision in view of the divergent findings of the courts below. The landlady brought RCP No.161 of 2007 before the Rent Control Court -I (Munsiff Court-I), Kozhikode for eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide need, and also on the ground that the tenants have acquired many other buildings after the commencement of the tenancy. The landlady obtained the petition schedule building under a settlement deed executed by her father Doraiswami, in the year 2003. The petition schedule building was taken on rent by one Cherukutti, the predecessor in interest of the present tenants, from the father of the petitioner years back. On the death of Cherukutty, the tenancy devolved upon the legal heirs who are the respondents in the eviction proceedings. Though the rent initially was very low, it was subsequently raised to 2000/- in January, 2007. The tenants have been running a stationery business by name "Mooleppattu Stationary" in the tenanted premises. The landlady's husband Raja Venkita Raman is an experienced Medical Practitioner. His father Venkitaraman was also an established Doctor, who had his own clinic in a rented building near the Pushpa Theatre, Kallai Road, Kozhikode. The petitioner's husband Raja Venkittaraman started practice along with his father in the said building on completion of his course in medicine. In the year 2001, the landlord of the said building filed RCP No.124 of 2001 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff Court -II) Kozhikode for eviction of Dr.Venkittaraman from the said tenanted building. In the said proceedings, eviction was ordered by the court, against which Dr.Venkittaraman filed RCA No.130 of 2005 before the Appellate Authority. On the death of Dr.Venkittaraman, his son Raja Venkittaraman, who is the husband of the landlady in this case, got himself impleaded and continued the said proceedings. However, he lost his case in appeal, and the order of eviction has become final. The landlady in this case, and her husband apprehend that at any time Dr.Raja Venkittaraman may be expelled from the premises in execution of the order of eviction in RCP No.124/2001. Dr.Raja Venkittaraman has no room or building of his own for his practice as Doctor and so he depends upon his wife, who has her own building in the Kozhikode Town. Finding that Dr.Raja Venkittaraman will have to vacate the premises on the Kallai Road, Calicut, his wife brought proceedings for eviction of the tenants in this case from the petition schedule building. Her case is that her husband has no room or building of his own, and she has no other building in her possession to accommodate her husband. In case, her husband is evicted from the tenanted premises in execution of the order in RCP 124 of 2001, he will have no place to practice his profession, and so the landlady bona fide needs her own building to accommodate her husband who wants to start a clinic of his own in the petition schedule building. It is her further case that the tenants have in fact acquired so many buildings after the tenancy and they are in possession of those buildings which are more than sufficient for their requirements.

(2.) The tenants entered appearance in the trial court and filed counter statement resisting the prayer for eviction on the contention that the landlady's husband Dr.Raja Venkittaraman is not at all dependent on her, because he has been continuing in the other tenanted premises on the Kallai Road, Calicut under a new arrangement with the landlord of the said building, that he has been confortably and conveniently continuing his practice there, that he has no intention at all to start another clinic in the petition schedule building, that the attempt of the landlady has been to evict the tenants somehow and sell the premises to the owner of an adjacent commercial complex known as "Land World Centre', and that the present claim on the ground of bona fide need is only a ruse for eviction. As regards the other claim brought under Section 11 4 (iii) of the Act, the definite case pleaded by the tenants is that the two rooms mentioned by the landlady in the petition as Building Nos.10/741, 10/743 are in fact the godown of the present business being conducted in the tenanted premises and that these two rooms do not have any business prospects attracting customers directly. As regards another building No.11/38 mentioned in the eviction petition, the definite case of the tenants is that the said building is in the possession of one Partnership firm by name 'Mooleppatu Enterprises', and the tenants have nothing to do with the said building. As regards yet another building at Kuttiyilthazham mentioned in the petition, their case is that the said building is far away from the Kozhikode Town, and the present business cannot be conducted profitably in the said building.

(3.) The trial court formulated the points for decision, and recorded oral and documentary evidence on both sides. The landlady was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A8 were marked on her side. Four witnesses including the 1st respondent were examined and Exts.B1 to B41 were marked on the side of the tenants. The reports and the sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court were marked as Exts.C1, C1 (a) , C2 and C2 (a).