PREMAN Vs. GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in revision challenging the dismissal of RCP.No.9 of 2005 of the Rent Control Court, Parappanangadi which has been confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur by judgment in RCA No.1 of 2009. The landlord had sought for an order of eviction against the respondent tenant under Sections 11(2) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The ground under Section 11(2) does not survive and what has been pressed before us is only the ground under Section 11 (3). The case of the petitioner is that, he was conducting a Jewellery by name Ratna Jewellery in the tenanted premises. While so, he got an opportunity to go abroad. At that time, he had entrusted the Jewellery to his father and brother. The respondent is his brother. In the year 1994, the entire building had to be demolished pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the PWD (Roads) for widening the road. The shop room on the upper floor of the building that was occupied by one Srinivasan was got evicted by filing a Rent Control Petition under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent, acting as the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. After obtaining vacant possession of the building, the respondent shifted the Jewellery business to another premises temporarily. The building was thereafter reconstructed. Originally there were two rooms on the ground floor of the building. After reconstruction, there is only one room on the ground floor. The respondent is in occupation of the said shop room under a fresh oral lease. The revision petitioner sought eviction on the ground that he wanted to start his own jewellery business.

(2.) The Rent Control Petition was resisted by the respondent tenant. According to the tenant, the building was taken on rent in the year 1986, when the revision petitioner left for UAE as per Exhibit B1 registered lease dead. The term of the lease is 30 years and would expire only in the year 2016. It was during the currency of the lease agreement that the building was reconstructed in the year 1994. At that time, since the brothers were on good terms, the entire reconstruction was undertaken by the respondent himself. The Rent control Petition against Sri. Srinivasan who was a tenant was also instituted by the respondent. The business was shifted to another premises only temporarily. After reconstruction, the Jewellery business was shifted back to the ground floor of the reconstructed building. The respondent has been continuing in the said premises, ever since. Since the term of the lease has not expired, it was contended that, the Rent Control Petition was premature.

(3.) With respect to the need that was put forward under Section 11(3), the contention of the respondent was that, there was absolutely no bonafides in the need. If at all, the landlord had a genuine desire to start a Jewellery business of his own, he was in possession of other vacant shop rooms from one of which, such business could be started. Therefore, according to the respondent, the need put forward was lacking in bona fides and the Rent Control Petition was liable to be dismissed. It is also the case of the tenant that, all the litigation had commenced after the brothers fell apart in the year 2002. The landlord had initially filed O.S.No.46 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Tirur contending that he was conducting the Jewellery business, that the respondent was preparing to trespass into the said building and to obstruct the business and had obtained an order of temporary injunction. Thereupon, the respondent had filed O.S.No.162 of 2002 producing Exhibit B1 lease deed contending that he was the tenant in occupation of the shop room conducting business therein. Both suits were tried together by the Sub Court, Tirur. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed while the suit filed by the respondent was decreed. It was thereafter that the present Rent Control Petition was filed.