RARAMKANDATH USMANKOYA Vs. RARAMKANDATH ABOOBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision against the concurrent orders of eviction under Sec. 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The tenanted premises form part of a shopping complex. The respondent landlord had sought eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule rooms which are numbered as KP 1/531 and 1/532. Originally, shop room Nos. 1/527, 528, 530, 531 and 532 had been taken on rent by the tenant. Later on, in the year 2009, shop room Nos. 1/527 and 1/528 were surrendered to the landlord by the petitioner. The landlord sought eviction on the ground that vacant possession of the premises was needed for him to display the furniture and other items of the business that he was conducting. The landlord also contended that he was entitled to an order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) as well as 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The tenant disputed the grounds that were put forward. The parties went to trial and after evidence was adduced, the Rent Control Court found that the grounds under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act were not made out. However, eviction was ordered under Sec. 11(8). The tenant challenged the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Tirur in RCA No. 23 of 2012 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur. The Appellate Authority on a re -appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the order of eviction passed under Sec. 11(8) of the Act.

(2.) According to the counsel for the petitioner, though initially the landlord had claimed eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Sec. 11(3) also, the said ground was not pressed. Since the ground was not pressed well before the parties adduced any evidence, the tenant had not let in any evidence to claim the benefit of the proviso to Sec. 11(3) also. The only aspect on which the challenge in the revision is made, is with respect to the eviction granted under Sec. 11(8) of the Act. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, the landlord is in occupation of room Nos. 1/527 and 1/528 that were surrendered by the tenant in the year 2009. According to the landlord, he has not started his furniture business in room No. 1/527 for the reason that it was not spacious enough to accommodate the business. That is the reason why he has sought to evict the tenant. In shop room No. 1/528, though he is conducting a partnership business, the need projected in the Rent Control Petition is for expanding the furniture business that he wanted to conduct in room No. 527. Since the landlord is only in possession of the shop room and not in occupation thereof by conducting any business, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the ground under Sec. 11(8) is not available to him. He cannot be considered to be a person who is occupying a portion of the building. It is further contended that, the tenant is in occupation of shop room numbers 1/531, 532, 530, 533 and 534. All those rooms form a cohesive unit. Therefore, the tenancy according to the learned counsel cannot be split up and partial eviction cannot be sought in respect of the tenanted premises. A further contention is advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that since the building has been constructed in two items of properties abutting each other but belonging to the landlord and his wife separately, the Rent Control Petition filed without the juncture of his wife is not maintainable. It is also contended that, the remaining portion for which eviction has not been sought namely, room No. 1/530, located in the property of the wife would be left with no means of access. This is for the reason that the common staircase of the building is situate in the property of the respondent landlord. It is contended that the above aspects have not been considered by the authorities below in the proper perspective. Therefore, the counsel seeks interference in revision with the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Sri. T. Sethumadhavan (Senior Counsel) has entered appearance for the landlord. According to the learned Senior Counsel, though the property on which the building is constructed belongs to two different persons, the respondent and his wife, the building has a common staircase as well as a lift. They are meant for providing access to all parts of the building. There is also a corridor in the building which provides access to various parts thereof, which are occupied by different tenants. Therefore, the contention regarding lack of access is without any basis. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the various rooms in the building are numbered separately and are occupied by different tenants who are carrying on their distinct and separate businesses. Therefore, the identity of each of the premises is clear and there can be no difficulty in identifying each portion separately. In such circumstances, there is no impediment in seeking eviction in respect of a portion of the building. With respect to the ground under Sec. 11(8), according to the learned Senior counsel, what the statutory provision contemplates is only that the landlord is in occupation of a portion of the building. In the present case, admittedly he is conducting a business in shop room No. 1/528. Therefore, there is no absolutely no bar in applying Sec. 11(8) to the facts of the present case. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior counsel that eviction could be sought under Sec. 11(8) not only for conduct of the business that was being conducted in the building but also for the purpose of commencing or conducting another business or altogether a new business. For the above reasons, it is contended that the authorities below have considered the matter in the proper perspective and that no interference with the same is called for.