K K HARIDAS Vs. DEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in this Revision challenges the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The brief facts in this Revision are: The landlady, a young widow, approached the Rent Control Court, Cherthala seeking for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act, for the purpose of starting a tailoring and garment business in the petition schedule building. The landlady deposed before the Rent Control Court that she would not have filed the present Rent Control Petition if the tenant had agreed to pay the enhanced rent as demanded by the petitioner/landlady. The tenanted premises is situated at Cherthala. The landlady is residing at Kochi along with her minor daughter. It has come out in evidence that the landlady's father, who settled the tenanted premises in favour of the petitioner, had also filed a petition for eviction of the tenant, in which it was found that the bona fide need set up by the landlady's father was not genuine. The Rent Control Court disallowed the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act appreciating the deposition of the landlady that her demand for enhancement was not heeded to by the tenant and also for the reason that she is residing at Kochi along with her minor daughter and also taking into account the fact that her father had filed a Rent Control Petition seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, which ended in dismissal. The landlady thereafter approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the said finding as per the judgment dated 25.1.2012 in R.C.A.No.44 of 2008. The Appellate Authority noted that those facts mentioned as above are not relevant to determine the bona fides of the landlady while making an enquiry under Section 11(3) of the Act. The fact that the landlady demanded for enhanced rate of rent was also noted by the Appellate Authority. It was alsofound by the Appellate Authority that the eviction petition filed by the father which ended in dismissal would no away affect the claim of the landlady under Section 11(3) of the Act. It was also found that the mere fact that the landlady is residing at Kochi along with her minor daughter cannot be a reason for denying the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court and allowed the appeal.

(3.) Challenging the order of eviction, the tenant filed R.C.R.No.297 of 2012 before this Court. Pending Revision, the tenant filed I.A.No.1669 of 2013 to show that the landlady's father had executed a settlement deed in favour of the daughter of the landlady, who is admittedly a minor. It is contended by the tenant that the building acquired by the daughter by way of settlement executed by the grandfather would have an impact on the bona fide need claimed by the landlady. This Court, as per the order dated 5.8.2013, remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to find out whether any impact would result on account of the subsequent event, based on a settlement deed executed by the father of the landlady in favour of her daughter, and also directed the tenant to file a detailed affidavit in the appeal before the Appellate Authority stating the facts, which, according to the tenant, will have an impact on the bona fide need. The landlord was also given an opportunity to file objection and to counter the allegations to be placed by the tenant by way of affidavit before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority found that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the tenant, no materials were placed before the Appellate Authority to show the execution of the settlement deed by the father of the landlady in favour of her daughter, even though an affidavit was filed. It was also observed by the Appellate Authority that instead of availing the opportunity to adduce further evidence based on the remand order, the tenant projected other allegations which are totally unconnected to the purpose for which the remand order was passed. Based on the affidavit and other relevant records, the Appellate Authority considered the point involved and found that the claim of the landlady is genuine and the tenant is liable to be evicted under Section 11(3) of the Act. Challenging the said finding of the Appellate Authority, the tenant filed this Revision.