P.C. ZACHARIAH JAMES Vs. MATHEW JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 5 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller (Munsiff -Magistrate), Mananthavady. The respondent is the landlord therein. The respondent instituted R.C.P. No. 5 of 2009 under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short, praying for an order of eviction in respect of a shop room bearing Door No. VI/486 of Mananthavady Grama Panchayath. The said building is situate in R.S. No. 459/2 of Memom Village, Mananthavady Taluk, Wayanad District.

(2.) THE landlord contended that he needs the petition schedule building for the purpose of starting a business in hill produce. Upon receipt of notice, the tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement contending that the need put forward is not bonafide and that the landlord is already conducting jewellery business. He also claimed the benefit of the second proviso to sub -section (3) of section 11 of the Act. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlord examined himself as PW1 and produced and marked Exts. A1 to A3 on his side. The tenant examined himself as RW2, the Secretary of Mananthavady Grama Panchayath as RW1 and produced and marked Ext. B1 on his side. The court below considered the rival contentions and held that the need put forward is bonafide. As regards the benefits of the second proviso to sub -section (3) of section 11 of the Act, the Rent Control Court held that the tenant has other sources of income and that he has not taken any steps to prove the ingredients of the second limb of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. An order for eviction was accordingly passed on 31.01.2011. The tenant carried the matter in appeal by filing R.C.A. No. 5 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge -I), Kalpetta. By judgment delivered on 13.06.2014, the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) PER contra, Sri. Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord submitted that after the rent control petition was allowed by order passed on 31.01.2011, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as LPG Distributor at Mananthavady, that the respondent's son had applied on 17.08.2011 offering the land situate in Survey No. 158/1B for the purpose of the godown and the shop rooms situate in Survey No. 459/2 as the show room, that the said application was considered and the LPG distributorship awarded to the respondent's son as per Annexure -R1 letter of intent dated 17.02.2014 and that thereupon, the landlord's son has started the distributorship. The learned counsel for the landlord contended that it was with a view to enable the landlord's son to start the LPG Distributorship that he had closed down the business in jewellery and that such a course was adopted for the reason that the petitioner had not surrendered possession of the petition schedule building and was prosecuting the matter in appeal and also for the reason that he had no other premises available with him where his son could have started the distributorship. Learned counsel contended that in such circumstances, it cannot be said that by virtue of subsequent events, the bonafide need stands eclipsed.