RATHEESH KUMAR Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Rent Control Revisions are filed against the common judgment of the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha, in R. C. A. Nos. 20, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 442 of 2001. There were six Rent Control Petitions filed by the same landlord against six separate tenants. The tenants were in occupation of a line building in Alappuzha Town. The landlord sought eviction of the buildings on the ground of arrears of rent as against the respondents in R. C. P. Nos. 20, 22 and 25 of 1997. He also sought eviction on the ground of bona fide need for occupation against all the respondents. The parties are here in after referred to according to their status in the Rent Control Petitions.

(2.) THE Rent Control Petitions were filed stating that the 10 rooms having Municipal Numbers AMCW. 19/496 to 503 and 485 and 517 belonged to the landlord as per partition deed No.2465/1987 of SRO, Alappuzha. For the purpose of disposal of these revisions, it is not necessary to state the facts of each case as the facts are more or less similar. All the Rent Control Petitions are filed by the landlord through his power of attorney, Chandresh T. Lodhaya, Sunder Nivas, C. C. N. B. Road, Alappuzha. In R.C.P. No. 20 of 1997, the landlord contended that the tenant had taken the room on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- and the rent was defaulted from December, 1994 onwards. The notice terminating the tenancy was sent on 14.5.1996. The petitioner is in bona fide need of the petition schedule shop room with other rooms for putting up a residence for him after renovation. He is residing with his brother Chandresh. The counter petitioner has approached the landlord after receipt of notice and requested for time to vacate the room. But he did not vacate the premises and the Rent Control Petition was filed. There is vacant land on the back side of the petition schedule building. For the better enjoyment of the land, there is no convenience passage. Hence the western most 3 rooms bearing Nos. 493, 494 and 495 have to be demolished. The petitioner has obtained necessary sanction from the Local Authority to demolish the other rooms for his use. The petitioner is having financial capacity to meet the expenses for the renovation.

(3.) THE Rent Control Court found that as per Ext. A22 power of attorney executed by the landlord PW. 1 has got every authority to file the petition seeking eviction. The Rent Control Court also found that all the respondents are in possession of the respective rooms under the same landlord on tenancy arrangement and that the petitioner has got the right of the landlord as per Ext. A4 partition deed of 1987. The Rent Control Court found that there is no bona fides in the denial of title by the tenants or in claiming kudikidappu right over the petition schedule shop rooms. It was also found that the tenants failed to pay arrears of rent (except in the case of the respondents in R.C.P. Nos. 21, 26 and 27 of 1997) due to the petitioner even after accepting notices served upon them and that they were liable to be evicted under S.11(2)(b) of the Act. The Rent Control Court found that PW 1 was competent to give evidence on behalf of the landlord and that the landlord has established bona fide need for getting eviction of the entire rooms.