BENNY M. VARGHESE Vs. A.H. ABDUL JAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. The landlord had filed RCP137/2007 seeking an order of eviction against the respondent tenant on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the 'Act' for short). According to the landlord, he wanted to start a boutique along with his children, in the premises. The building is located at a commercially important place by the side of M.G. Road at Ernakulam. Therefore, according to him, he needed the same for his own occupation. Though he had demanded vacant possession of the premises from the tenant by issuing a notice through his Lawyer the tenant did not vacate the premises. Therefore, the Rent Control Petition was filed.

(2.) THE Rent Control Petition was resisted by the tenant, seriously disputing the bonafides of the claim put forward by the landlord. According to the tenant, a reading of the Rent Control Petition showed that the emphasis therein was on various other aspects rather than the need on the basis of which eviction was sought. According to the tenant, his power of attorney holder who was dealing with the landlord was a person against whom the landlord was having differences of opinion and that was the real reason for seeking eviction of the tenant. He contended that, he had purchased the jewellery as a running concern and had invested substantial amounts therein. A lot of money had been expended for interior decoration, all of which would be lost if vacant possession was ordered. Since the need that was put forward was not genuine, according to the tenant the Rent Control Petition was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Controller found that the landlord had not succeeded in establishing the bonafides of his need. According to the learned Rent Controller, though Exts. A1 and A2 notices had preceded the issue of the Lawyer notice Ext. A3, there was no mention in those notices about the alleged need of the landlord. There were other communications between the parties wherein the landlord had demanded payment of service tax in respect of the rent that was paid by the tenant. The proximity of the dates of the above communications were taken note of to conclude that, had the need been genuine there would have been some mention thereof in the said communications. The Rent Controller also took note of the statement of the landlord as P.W. 1 that according to him, it would have been better, had he been dealing with a different power of attorney holder instead of the present one. For the above reasons, it was found that there were disputes subsisting between the landlord and the tenant regarding payment of electricity charges, water charges, service tax etc., apart from the disputes with the power of attorney holder. Therefore, it was found that there was a possibility of there being a hidden agenda in seeking the order of eviction. Accordingly, the Rent Control Petition was dismissed. The landlord thereupon challenged the dismissal of his petition in RCA 46/2009. The Rent Control Appellate Authority permitted the landlord to take out another commission to conduct a local inspection. The report of the Advocate Commissioner has been marked as Ext. C2. The Advocate Commission was taken out in the context of the contention of the tenant that the landlord was in possession of other vacant rooms. The Advocate Commissioner has in Ext. C2 report stated that the rooms were not suitable for the business proposed. According to the Appellate Authority also a reading of the Rent Control Petition gives an overall impression that the landlord was laying emphasis more on other facts that related to events that had taken place during the subsistence of the lease and that the need had only been stated in a casual manner. The Appellate Authority placed reliance on the statement of the landlord as P.W. 1 to the effect that his daughters were all married and living with their husbands to conclude that the said circumstances justified doubts regarding the genuineness of the need that was put forward. The landlord was at that time aged 63 years. The Appellate Authority found that he had no previous experience in conducting business and that a statement that he "bonafide" required the building for his own occupation was conspicuously absent in the Rent Control Petition. The Appellate Authority noted that what has been stated was only that the need was genuine. The Appellate Authority has found that the landlord had not disclosed that he had other vacant rooms in his occupation. Therefore it has been held that the need that has been put forth was not bonafide. Accordingly, the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court has been confirmed.