NALAKATH SAIDALI HAJI Vs. KALLUPARAMBAN MUSTHAFA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's revision challenging concurrent orders of the authorities below dismissing a Rent Control Petition for eviction. The landlord had approached the Rent Control Court, Parappanangadi seeking an order of eviction against the respondents / tenants under S.11(2)(b), S.11(3), S.11(4)(i) and S.11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the 'Act' for short). The Rent Control Petition RCP 1/2011 was contested by the respondents. After trial, the Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. Though the landlord had challenged the order of dismissal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur in RCA 37/2012, the order of the Rent Control Court has been confirmed. The aggrieved landlord is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The landlord is the owner of a three storied building in Kottakkal Municipality. The tenanted premises are on the ground floor of the building and comprises of six rooms. The respondents have taken the shop rooms on rent on 27/03/2009. They have divided the shop rooms into cubicles that are sublet to different persons who are conducting businesses in duty paid goods. The respondents are also conducting a cool bar. The monthly rent in respect of the premises is Rs.25,000/-. According to the tenants an amount of Rs.10 lakhs has been paid as advance.

(3.) The landlord sought eviction of the tenants alleging that he needed the premises for the purpose of starting a supermarket, along with his son and son - in - law. It was also alleged that there were arrears of rent, that the tenant had sublet the premises to third parties in violation of the terms of the lease deed and that the tenant had materially altered the tenanted premises causing a diminution in the value thereof. The tenants disputed the need of the landlord contending that, he was still employed abroad and was holding an employment visa. His son is otherwise occupied, owns other buildings and is not dependant on the landlord. According to the tenants, landlord was a very affluent person who owned other buildings and premises at Valancherry, Edayoor and Kozhikode. Therefore he had absolutely no need to start a supermarket, as alleged. The need that has been put forward is only a ruse for eviction.