P N BABU Vs. BASHEER AHAMME AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P.No.7 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Alappuzha. The respondents are the landlords therein. They instituted R.C.P.No.7 of 2009 on 23.1.2009 praying for an order evicting the tenant from the petition schedule room, under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The landlords contended that the tenant was running a tailoring shop in the petition schedule premises, that practically no tailoring work is done by him for the past few years, that the second petitioner before the rent control court is a M.B.A. graduate having good academic and business background and sufficient experience in ready made garment business and that the landlords bonafide need the petition schedule shop room so as to enable the second petitioner before the rent control court to open a ready made garments shop in the petition schedule room and in the room adjacent to it. The landlords had, in the rent control petition, averred that the adjacent room bearing door No.AMC/14/356 (old number) is lying vacant and if possession of the petition schedule room is also obtained, he can start his business in ready made garments in the petition schedule room as also in the shop room bearing door No.AMC 14/356 after removing the wall separating the two rooms.

(2.) The tenant opposed the application by filing a counter statement wherein he contended inter-alia that he is running a tailoring business in the petition schedule room under the name and style "Preeth Garments" for the past 38 years, that the bonafide need put forward is not true, that the second petitioner does not have the ability or capacity to start a business in ready made garments, that even if the second petitioner intends to start a ready made garment business, there are other vacant rooms in the possession of the landlords. He also contended that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on by him in the petition schedule room and that no other suitable building is available in the locality.

(3.) Before the rent control court, the second petitioner was examined as PW1 and a real estate broker was examined as PW2 for the purpose of proving the availability of other alternate buildings in the locality. The landlord also produced and marked Exts.A1 to A10. The tenant examined himself as CPW1 and another witness as CPW2. The rent control court considered the rival contentions and held that the need put forward is bonafide. The rent control court took note of the fact that the father of the second petitioner who is the first petitioner in the rent control petition, is running a business in vegetables as also a ready made shop in partnership basis at Alappuzha, that it has come out in evidence that PW1 is assisting his father for the past three years in his business, and that the fact that the landlords have the capacity to start a business in ready made garments is evident from the admission made by the tenant examined as CPW1 that the landlords have the capacity to raise the required funds for starting a business in ready made garments. The rent control court also took note of Ext.A4 fixed deposit receipt for Rs.2,13,469/-, Ext.A5 fixed deposit receipt for Rs.1,98,512/- and Ext.A6 fixed deposit receipt for Rs.1,16,714/- and held that the evidence on record discloses the fact that the need put forward is true and genuine. The rent control court also took note of the admission made by CPW1 that shop room No.AMC/14/356 (adjacent room) is lying vacant and in the possession of the landlords after the tenant vacated it. The rent control court thereafter proceeded to consider the question whether the landlords have other vacant buildings in the same locality. The rent control court held that as the landlords themselves have admitted the fact that the adjacent shop room is in their possession and that the proposal is to start a business in ready made garments in the adjacent shop room and in the petition schedule shop room after removing the wall separating the two rooms and that the tenant has not adduced any evidence to show that the landlord is in possession of any other shop room in the ground floor of the building. Though by the time the case came up for trial, the UCO Bank which was occupying the first floor of the building had vacated the premises and PW1 had admitted the said fact when he was cross examined, the contention of the tenant that the proposed business can be run in that premises was repelled on the ground that it is not suitable for the business proposed to be conducted by the landlord. In coming to the said conclusion, the rent control court took note of the fact that apart from the fact that the space occupied by the UCO Bank is on the first floor, the said premises has more area than what is required by the landlord, that the landlords are not in exclusive possession of the said portion of the building and that the other co- owners have consented to the second petitioner running the proposed business in ready made garments only in shop rooms bearing door Nos.AMC/14/357 and 357 and that this constitutes special reasons as contemplated in the first proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. As regards the contention of the tenant that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act, the rent control court held that he has not proved that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the tailoring business run by him in the petition schedule building and that he has admitted the fact that several other vacant rooms are available in the locality. The rent control court accordingly allowed the petition and passed an order of eviction under section 11(3) of the Act. Challenging that order the tenant filed R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha. By judgment delivered on 20.1.2015 the appellate authority concurred with the rent control court and dismissed the appeal. The tenant has, aggrieved thereby, filed this revision petition under section 20 of the Act.