O.V. SADHU Vs. KELOTH ARIFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision before us challenging the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram in RCP No. 54 of 2012 and confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in RCA No. 20 of 2014. The revision petitioner tenant is in possession of two rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor of the building of which the tenanted premises form a part. In one of the shop rooms on the ground floor, the petitioner is conducting vegetable business while in the other he is conducting business in Hill produces. The room on the upper floor is being used as a store room.

(2.) The landlady had sought eviction on the grounds under Sec. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). According to the landlady, her husband who was employed in the Gulf was able to send her only an amount of Rs. 3,500/ - per month. The said amount was not sufficient for meeting the living expenses of herself and her family. Therefore, she wanted to augment her income by starting a business in the tenanted premises in ready made garments. The tenant disputed the need of the landlady alleging that her husband was earning more than one lakh per month, that he was sending sufficient amount to her for her sustenance and that, the need that was put forward at present was only a ruse for eviction. The tenant also contended that, the business conducted in the tenanted premises was the only source of income for himself and his family and that there was no other suitable room available in the locality for him to shift his business.

(3.) The Rent Control Court tried the petition on the above pleadings. Both sides adduced evidence. The evidence on the side of the landlady consists of Exhibits A1 to A4 documents and the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2. The respondent tenant examined himself as RW1 and marked Exhibits B1 to B11 documents on his side. On an analysis of the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that, the ground under Sec. 11(2)(b) was not made out. However, it was found that the landlady had succeeded in establishing the ground under Sec. 11(3). Therefore, eviction was ordered only on the said ground. Though the aggrieved tenant had challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in RCA No. 20 of 2014, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of eviction. It is the said judgment that is under challenge in this revision.