THANGALAKATH MEEKKARAVEETTIL VAHIDA Vs. MUNDOLI NABEESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Rent Control Revisions are filed by the tenants in four Rent Control cases challenging 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 Rent Control Petitions were jointly tried and were disposed of by a common order. The Rent Control Appeals filed by the tenants were also disposed of by a common judgment. Hence, we are disposing of these revisions by this common order.

(2.) THE respondent filed Rent Control Petition Nos.4 of 2011, 5 of 2011, 6 of 2011 and 7 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode against the respective tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlady contended that the building consisting of four rooms belonged to her husband Abdulkhader Haji. On the death of Abdulkhader Haji, his properties including the petition schedule building were partitioned among the legal heirs. In the partition, the petition schedule building was set apart to the landlady. The tenants were inducted in the building by her late husband. The tenants attorned to the landlady. The landlady also stated that her sister's son Abdul Salam is living with her. The landlady has no children. She considers Abdul Salam as her own son. Abdul Salam has no job or avocation and he depends on the landlady for his livelihood. The landlady and Abdul Salam have decided to commence a textile business in the petition schedule building after making necessary alterations and converting the four rooms into a hall. The building is situated on the side of the Court Road, Kozhikode, which is having great business potential. Abdul Salam was working in Saudi Arabia in a textile shop and he has necessary experience in conducting textile business. The landlady contended that she can provide the necessary funds for starting the new business. The landlady also contended that there are other buildings available in the locality to accommodate the business run by the tenants.

(3.) THE Rent Control Petition No.4 of 2011 was taken as the main case while trying the four cases jointly. Oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. The landlady was examined as PW1 and Abdul Salam was examined as PW2. On behalf of the tenants, RWs 1 to 4 were examined. A Commissioner was appointed to inspect the petition schedule building and she submitted Ext.C1 report. The Commissioner was examined as CW1 before the Rent Control Court.