RAHUL RAJ Vs. THANIKKAL SUNDARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in R.C.P.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Rent Control Court II, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner. He challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE respondent/landlord contended that the building, which is a residential house, belongs to him and that it was let out to the tenant (first respondent in the Rent Control Petition) in March, 2007 for a monthly rent of 750/ -. The tenant was working in G Tech Computer Centre run by the daughter of the landlord. According to the landlord, the house was let out to the tenant as a temporary arrangement and the tenant agreed to vacate the building on his getting another house or when he quits the job in G Tech Computer Centre. According to the landlord, the tenant did not vacate the building even after he left the job in 2008. The landlord contended that the petition schedule house is bona fide required for the residence of his son Sajeev and his family, Sajeev being dependant of the landlord for the purpose of the building.

(3.) THE respondents before the Rent Control Court contended in their joint counter statement that there was no lease arrangement as stated by the landlord. They contended that the landlord agreed to sell the petition schedule building and the property to the second respondent (father of the first respondent/tenant) for a total consideration of 1,25,000/ - and a sum of 80,000/ - was given as advance. It was also contended that 750/ - per month was being paid towards the sale consideration.