MARIYAM Vs. SAIFUDDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady in a Rent Control Petition, against whom an order under Section 11(12) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the "Act"), was passed by the Rent Control Court and which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner. The petitioner filed the Rent Control Petition against the respondent under Section 11(3) of the Act for getting vacant possession of the petition schedule building for the bona fide use of landlady's son, Dr. Arif for the purpose of running a Dental Clinic. Though the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition for eviction, it was reversed by the Appellate Authority and it was confirmed by the High Court. The tenant requested for time before the High Court to vacate the petition schedule building and time upto 30.9.2006 was granted to him to vacate. It is submitted that before that date, he surrendered the key of the building before Court. The landlady got delivery of the building on 17.10.2006. Alleging that the landlady did not occupy the building within one month from the date of obtaining possession, the respondent-tenant filed an application under Section 11(12) of the Act before the Rent Control Court on 10.1.2007. That application was allowed by the Rent Control Court and it was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, which is under challenge in this revision filed by the landlady.

(2.) According to the respondent-tenant, the landlady did not occupy the building and her son did not open the Clinic in the building within one month from the date of obtaining possession of the building. According to the tenant, the landlady had no reasonable cause for such non occupation. According to the landlady, the building was occupied only on 16.1.2007 and there was reasonable cause for her non occupation within one month from the date of obtaining possession. Before the Rent Control Court, the tenant was not examined in support of the application. His father was examined as PW1 and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was examined as PW2. The son of the landlady was examined as RW1.

(3.) Certain facts are undisputed. The landlady got delivery of the building on 17.10.2006. The application under Section 11(12) of the Act was filed on 10.1.2007. The Commissioner inspected the building on 10.1.2007. He reported that as on the date of inspection, there was no sign of any occupation by the landlady. On 16.1.2007, the son of the landlady made ExtB16 application to the local authority for issuing licence for opening the Clinic, he having obtained Ext.B15 consent from his mother, the landlady. On 16.1.2007, the son of the landlady made Ext.B17 application to the local authority for issuing ownership certificate for running the Clinic in the petition schedule building. Ext.B19 consent was given by the landlady in that regard. On 1.2.2007, the local authority rejected the application for licence submitted by the son of the landlady on the ground that the tenant objected to the issue of licence stating that the matter is pending before the court. The objection dated 25.1.2007 filed by the tenant was referred to in Ext.P20 order issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat refusing licence. On 5.2.2007, the Rent Control Court passed an order directing the landlady and her son to maintain status quo in respect of the petition schedule building. That order was passed on the application filed by the tenant.