MARUNNINTA PARAMBATH SREEDHARAN Vs. SHARAFUL ISLAM MADRASSA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent filed R.C.P. No. 36 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram against the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord contended that it runs a Madrassa. To meet the expenses of the Madrassa, Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month is required. The Madrassa Committee decided to start a textile business in the petition schedule room by annexing that room with two other rooms, so that it can be converted into a hall. It was contended by the landlord that the building is required bona fide for conducting a textile business.

(2.) The tenant contended that the bona fide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine. The landlord has several sources of income. It was contended that Room No. 978 is in the possession of the landlord and therefore, the petition is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant also raised a contention that he is entitled to the benefits of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. At the fag end of the trial, the tenant also raised a contention that the landlord is a Wakf and therefore, Section 25 of the Act is attracted. Hence, the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable.

(3.) The Rent Control Court considered the oral and documentary evidence in the case and held that the need put forward by the landlord is genuine. As regards the availability of Room No. 978, the Rent Control Court found that even according to the landlord, that room is also required to be annexed to the petition schedule room, in order to run the business in textiles. Therefore, it cannot be held that the first proviso to Section 11(3) is attracted in the case.