SARFUDHEEN Vs. NASEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 5 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Alathur, a petition filed by the respondent/landlord for an order of eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short.

(2.) THE landlord had in the petition for eviction averred that she bonafide needs the petition schedule building to start a copying -cum -computer typing centre and that the tenant has kept the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per mensem in arrears from 1.6.2009. Upon receipt of notice, the tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement resisting the petition for eviction. He contended that he has not kept the rent in arrears, that the rate of rent is only Rs. 150/ - per mensem and that the bonafide need put forward is not genuine. He also contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant also contended that the landlord owns another building in the same locality and therefore, in the absence of special reasons, an order of eviction cannot be passed.

(3.) THE rent control court considered the rival contentions and the evidence on record and held that the need put forward by the landlord is bonafide. The contention of the tenant that the landlord owns another building was repelled on the ground that prior to the institution of the rent control petition that building was sold as per Ext. A3 sale deed. The rent control court also held that the tenant has not succeeded in proving that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building and that he has also failed to prove that no other buildings are available in the locality. In coming to the aforesaid findings, the rent control court took note of the fact that the tenant is admittedly running another business in the room adjacent to the petition schedule building but belonging to the landlord's sister. The rent control court also placed reliance on Ext. C1 report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner which discloses the availability of other suitable buildings in the locality. The contention of the landlord that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears was however not accepted. Consequently, an order of eviction under section 11(3) of the Act was passed on 20.6.2013.