C.P. PAUL Vs. LALU PAULSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant having a multi-storied building with a total space of 30,000 sq. ft., in his possession, would not stop his fight against the landlord in his cause for recovery of his own building having a space of 1200 sq. ft. for his own purpose. The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was introduced in Kerala with the social object of protecting tenants from unscrupulous and arbitrary eviction, while protecting the interests of landlords. The tenants who have ceased to occupy the tenanted premises or who have handed over the tenanted premises under any sort of arrangement which is not authorised by the contract of lease, will not get the protection under the Act. The defences available to tenants under the Act in the proceedings brought for eviction by landlords, can be availed only by those tenants who continue in the tenanted premises, actually occupying the premises. Unscrupulous tenants who would try to continue in the premises by all means possible, even when they have ceased to occupy the premises, or have otherwise handed over the premises to somebody, would not get the benefit of the protection under the Act. When such tenants come before the Court, it must be the concern of the Court that the provisions of the Act are not allowed to be misused. The tenant in the eviction proceedings brought as R.C.P. 98 of 2009 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner before us. The landlord is an I.T. Professional having high qualifications like M.B.A., and M.S. in Computer Science. He has some business activity abroad. On the satisfaction that the petition schedule building in this case, which belongs to him, is situated in an ideal location, having good prospects for I.T. business, he thought of starting some business here, in his own premises, and with the said object, he proceeded to evict the tenant on the ground of bona fide need under S. 11(3) of the Act. Though eviction was initially sought under S. 11(4)(iv) of the Act also, it was later abandoned, and the ground under S. 11(4)(iii) of the Act was introduced by amendment. The case of the landlord is that the tenant has acquired a multi storied building of his own which is well sufficient for all his purposes, including the purpose for which the petitioner's building was initially taken on rent by him.

(2.) The tenant entered appearance and resisted the prayer for eviction on the contention that the need projected by the petitioner in the petition for eviction is only a ruse for eviction, that the petitioner has no necessity at all for starting a business here when he is well settled abroad, that his daughter and the son-in-law have been conducting a Dental Clinic in the tenanted premises by name 'Paulson Dental Specialty Centre' which is in fact, his source of income, though run by the daughter and his son-in-law, that the said Dental Clinic cannot function in the building in his possession which he acquired subsequently, and that the said building is not sufficient for his business purposes.

(3.) The facts in this case touching the grounds for eviction are more or less admitted, and rather found against the tenant by the trial court and the appellate authority. (District Court, Ernakulam in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2012). Such concurrent findings on facts cannot be interfered in revision by this Court except when there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders of the authorities below.