SAITHU Vs. THAHIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rent Control Revision is filed by the respondents in R.C.P. No. 149 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur. The R.C.P. was filed under Sections 11(2)(a)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition while the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and granted eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) The contention of the landlord in the Rent Control Petition is as follows. The petition schedule building belonged to the petitioner's father under whom the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 9 was a tenant as per the rent deed dated 26-4-1972. The petitioner's father gifted the property with the building in favour of the petitioner in 1979. The tenant attorned to the petitioner and paid rent to her. The rent is paid only upto 23-1-1995 and thereafter it was kept in arrears. The petitioner is in need of the petition schedule building for the purpose of setting up a business of manufacturing plastic and leather products including chappals, bags etc. and that of lubricant oil and to use it as a godown and storing place for the goods and articles of such business to be conducted and run by the petitioner's husband who is without any job. The petitioner wants to reconstruct the petition schedule building after demolishing it to suit the same for the above-said business once it is vacated by the respondents. The petition schedule building is totally dilapidated and is in dangerous position and it has to be demolished and reconstructed before putting it to be used for the bonafide need of the petitioner. The petitioner is financially sound to demolish and reconstruct the same.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 4 and 7 to 9 filed a counter in the Rent Control Petition. The liability for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was denied on the ground that the rent was not paid since the landlord refused to accept the same. Along with the reply notice, a pay order for Rs. 1,805/- drawn in favour of the petitioner was enclosed to discharge the rent upto 23-1-1994 and she had encashed the same. With regard to the bonafide need, it was contended that there was no bonafide need and the need set up was a mere ruse to evict the respondents. Earlier, the petitioner had filed R.C.P. No. 88 of 1984 and it was dismissed. It was also contended that the petition schedule building not was needed for starting an industrial unit. The question of using it as a godown does not arise as the petitioner has not started any manufacturing unit. It was also contended that the petition schedule building alone cannot be reconstructed. It is one of the units in a main building. The building is strong and it can stand in its present condition for years.