P BALANANDAN Vs. P K KOYAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the legal heirs of the original tenant who was sought to be evicted from the petition schedule building under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. While the Rent Control Court dismissed the application on both the grounds, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and held that the landlord has established sufficient grounds for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the C.R.P. is filed.

(2.) It is contended by the landlord in the application for eviction that the petition schedule shed belonged to the petitioner's father Alavi Haji and it was entrusted to the tenant Balanandan on a monthly rent of Rs. 225 on 6-3-1981. After the death of Alavi the property belonged to his legal heirs of whom the petitioner is the head of the family. The tenant has paid rent up to March 1994 and thereafter he has kept rent in arrears. The shed is required for the bona fide use of the petitioner's brother Samad. A notice was sent on 17-8-1996 requiring the tenant to surrender the shed for which he has sent a reply raising untenable contentions.

(3.) In the objections filed by the tenant, it was contended that the shed was in the possession of the tenant for 22 years and the rent payable was Rs. 150. When it was increased to Rs. 225, a rent deed was executed on 6-3-1981 and the previous possession by the tenant was mentioned in the rent deed itself. The petitioner used to come to the workshop to collect rent. No receipt was issued for certain payments. The rent up to September, 1996 was thus paid. Subsequent rent was not paid since the landlord did not come to collect the same. There is no bona fide need for the landlord as alleged in the petition. On 17-8-1996 the landlord has sent Ext.B-2 lawyer notice demanding increase of rent from Rs. 225 to Rs. 2,000 failing which it was threatened, action would be taken against the tenant. The tenant sent a reply agreeing to increase the rent to Rs. 250. Thereafter, the Rent Control Petition was filed. The tenant was not willing to enhance the rent to Rs. 2,000. Even if the brother of the landlord wanted to conduct business, there are other rooms available with the landlord for that purpose, situate adjacent to the petition schedule shed. One room which was obtained on eviction was closed for several months and it was given to another tenant a few months prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition. If there was any bonafide need, that room could have been used by the petitioner's brother. The tenant is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule shed and no other suitable building is available to the tenant.