KOTTUMMAL AHAMMED Vs. PANOLI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord, the respondents herein, filed R.C.P.No.48 of 2011 before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room.

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlords, the petition schedule shop room was taken on lease by the tenant and the current rate of rent is 700/ -. The tenant paid rent only up to December, 2010 and thereafter, the rent is kept in arrears. The bona fide need put forward by the landlords is that of the second respondent herein to start vegetable and stationary business in the petition schedule shop room. The tenant filed a counter admitting the tenancy and also the rate of rent in respect of the petition schedule shop room. According to the tenant, there is no default in payment of rent and the need put forward by the landlords is not bona fide. The tenant is conducting vegetable business in the petition schedule shop room and the income derived from the said business is his sole livelihood and no suitable building is available in the locality to shift the business.

(3.) ON the side of the landlords, the second respondent herein was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked. The tenant was examined as RW1. During the course of arguments, the prayer for eviction under Section 11(2) of the Act was not pressed into service. The Rent Control Court by order dated 21.6.2012 allowed the petition under Section 11(3) of the Act and directed the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room. The Rent Control Court found that the need put forward by the landlords is bona fide and that the tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of the first and second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.