BALAKRISHNAN Vs. BACHISOLEEMANTAKATHATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, challenging the concurrent finding under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, filed this Rent Control Revision.

(2.) The respondent/landlady filed R.C.P. No. 22 of 2001 before the Rent Control Court, Taliparamba, claiming eviction under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court disallowed the claim for eviction under Sections 11(2) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. However, ordered eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act. Challenging the order of eviction, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 184 of 2002 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court.

(3.) Sri.R.Surendran, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submitted that the courts below erred in overlooking the objection raised by the tenant under first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is the case of the tenant that he had pleaded that the landlady is having vacant possession of other rooms in the same building at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition. To substantiate the same, the tenant produced before the Rent Control Court the order passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P. No. 21 of 2001, which was marked as Ext.B8 in the present Rent Control Petition. However, the Rent Control Court did not rely on Ext.B8. Before the Appellate Authority, the tenant produced another document along with I.A. No. 1651 of 2008, which was received and marked as Ext.B9. This would go to show that the landlady is running a public telephone booth in building No. MP- V/171 of Pazhayangadi.