K.M.MOHAMMED KOYA Vs. KOLAPRATH PADIKKAL MEHARUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent -landlady filed R.C.P.No.24/2011 under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Principal Rent Control Court/Principal Munsiff -II, Kozhikode, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building.

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlady, the petition schedule building which originally belonged to one Mammad Haji was assigned in her favour and thereafter, she is the absolute owner of the same. In the year 1960, the father of the tenant took the petition schedule building on oral lease from the father of the landlady on a monthly rent of 50/ - and an advance of 150/ -. After the death of his father, the tenant is doing business in the petition schedule building. The rent is in arrears after December, 2005. Moreover, the landlady bona fide requires the petition schedule building for starting a tailoring and ready made -cum -fancy shop for her livelihood. The building is suitable to start the said business and she has no other vacant room in her possession for the said purpose. In such circumstances, the Rent Control Petition was filed seeking eviction of the tenant from the petitions schedule building.

(3.) THE tenant filed counter affidavit contending that the original rent was only 25/ -, which the landlady increased to 50/ - by herself. The tenant was never informed about the transfer of ownership of the building. The rent fell in arrears as the original landlord refused to accept the same. The bona fide need put forward by the landlady is not genuine. Her father and son were employed abroad and her elder son is now conducting business at Kozhikode. The landlady has no knowledge or capacity to run the proposed business. She owns other shop rooms which are rented out to other tenants. The income derived from the upholstery business conducted in the petition schedule building is the main livelihood of the tenant and his family. No suitable rooms are available in the vicinity to shift the business conducted in the petition schedule building. Therefore, the tenant claimed protection of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.