K.P. VIJAYAN Vs. K.T. MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 23 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thalassery, a petition filed by the respondent landlord for an order of eviction under Sec. 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for short. The landlord had in the petition for eviction averred that he bona fide needs the petition schedule building to enable his niece who was examined as PW1 to start a computer job work -cum -coaching centre. It was averred that PW1 possesses Masters Degree in Computer Science, that she has gained experience in computer education and also possesses the requisite funds to establish a computer job work -cum -coaching centre. He also contended that the rent is in arrears from May 1998 and that the tenant has without his consent and knowledge sublet the petition schedule building to another person at a higher rent.

(2.) Upon receipt of notice, the tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement. He contended that the rent happened to be in arrears since no one intimated him about the person to whom rent should be paid upon the death of Kunhimoossa to whom the building originally belonged. He had further averred that upon receipt of the lawyer's notice, arrears of rent was sent by money order, but the landlord refused to receive the same. He further contended that the need put forward is only a ruse to evict him, that the petition schedule building is not suitable to run a computer centre and that the niece of the landlord is not a member of his family and is not dependent on him. The tenant contended that he and his family are mainly depending for their livelihood on the income derived from the business carried on by him in the petition schedule building and that other suitable buildings are not available in the locality to shift his business. He also denied and disputed the averment in the rent control petition that he has sublet the building to another and contended that he is still in possession of the tenanted premises.

(3.) Before the rent control court, the niece of the landlord for whose benefit, an order of eviction was sought, was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were produced and marked. The tenant examined himself as RW1 and produced and marked Exts.B1 to B5. The rent control court considered the rival contentions and held that as the arrears of rent has since been paid, the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction under Sec. 11(2)(b) of the Act. The rent control court held, accepting the case put forward by the landlord and spoken to by PW1 that the bona fide need put forward is true and genuine. The contention of the tenant that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act was repelled. The rent control court however held, relying on Ext. B5 building tax assessment register maintained by the Panoor Grama Panchayath, that the landlord is in possession of the building mentioned therein and that he has not disclosed the said fact in the petition for eviction or proved special reasons justifying the grant of an order of eviction in respect of the petition schedule building. The rent control court accordingly held that the tenant is entitled to the protection of the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act. As regards the contention that the tenant has sublet the premises, the rent control court held that the landlord has failed to prove the said contention. Consequently, by order passed on 29.07.2005, the rent control court dismissed the petition for eviction.