PANOLI KANAPPANKANDY VASANTHA AND ORS. Vs. KOROTHUMKANDY AYISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P. No. 6 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kuthuparamba, a petition filed by the respondent/landlord for an order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. She had, in the rent control petition, averred that she bonafide needs the petition schedule building for her son who was examined as P.W.2, for starting a business in car accessories. She had also averred in the petition for eviction that she and her son are not in possession of any other building in Kuthuparamba town. The tenants opposed the application by filing a counter statement, contending that the need put forward is not bonafide, that the landlord is in possession of other vacant rooms in the same locality and that in view of the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act, the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction. The tenants further contended that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) Before the rent control court, the landlord examined herself as PW1, her son as PW2 and a relative who is running a business adjacent to the petition schedule shop room, as PW3. She also produced and marked Exts. A1 to A6 series. On application filed by her, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the petition schedule building and the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ext. C1. On the side of the tenants, the second respondent before the rent control court was examined as RW1 and Exts. B1 to B4 were produced and marked.

(3.) The rent control court considered the rival contentions and the materials on record and held that the bonafide need put forward is true. Though much was sought to be made out regarding the point of time at which PW2 gave up his employment in the Gulf countries and came back to his native place and also the reason why he came back to India, the rent control court held that as the petition for eviction was filed only in the year 2011 and PW2 has no regular source of income though he was working as a salesman temporarily, the need put forward cannot be said to be a ruse to evict the tenants. Accordingly, the rent control court held that the need put forward by the landlord is bonafide. Regarding the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act, the rent control court held that the tenants have not proved that the landlord is in vacant possession of any other building of her own in the same locality. The rent control court held that though the Advocate Commissioner was appointed on an application filed by the landlord, the tenants did not request the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises which according to them, were in the possession of the landlord. Therefore, as the tenants have not established the ingredients of the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act, they cannot successfully resist the petition for eviction. The contention of the tenants that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act was repelled on the ground that the tenants are admittedly in possession of another godown. The rent control court accordingly passed an order of eviction on 16.11.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants filed R.C.A. No. 97 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery. By judgment delivered on 9.12.2014 the rent control appellate authority concurred with the rent control court and dismissed the appeal. The tenants have, aggrieved thereby, filed this revision petition under Sec. 20 of the Act.