P VALSALA Vs. SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are counter petitioners 1 and 4 in R.C.P.No.57/2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and the appellants in R.C.A.No.21/2012 on the file of the Addl. Rent Control Appellate Authority -II, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) THE landlord, the respondent herein, filed R.C.P.No.57/2010 against the petitioners herein and two others, who are the legal heirs of the original tenant, seeking an order to evict them from a building bearing No. T.C.30/1600 situated at Pallimukku in Thiruvananthapuram District (hereinafter referred to as 'the petition schedule premises'), under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners herein, the widow and son of the original tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenants'), alone contested the matter and his two daughters, counter petitioners 2 and 3 in the Rent Control Petition, were set ex - parte.

(3.) ACCORDING to the landlord, the petition schedule premises was rented out to late Babu, the original tenant, on a monthly rent of 500/ -, which was periodically enhanced up to 700/ - per month. After the death of the original tenant his widow and children paid rent up to June, 2010 and thereafter the rent is in arrears. The bona fide need pleaded by the landlord is that of starting a Homoeo Clinic for his son in the petition schedule premises and also in the adjacent room. The landlord's son does not have any vacant building in his possession for conducting the said clinic and he is dependent on the landlord for the purpose of such accommodation. The landlord has no other vacant building in his possession. The other room adjacent to the petition schedule premises was rented out to another tenant and eviction proceedings in respect of the said room was also initiated, as he needs both rooms for starting a Homoeo Clinic for his son.