KHALID UMMER Vs. AFSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 5 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vaikom. The respondent is the landlord therein. The respondent instituted R.C.P. No. 5 of 2011 for an order of eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The substance of the averments in the rent control petition was that the rent is in arrears from October 2010, that the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and that the landlord bonafide needs the reconstructed building for his own use to start a supermarket. The landlord had in the rent control court produced and marked as Ext. A6, the building permit issued from Thalayolaparambu Grama Panchayat as also a copy of the estimate and plan approved by the Thalayolaparambu Grama Panchayat as Ext. A7. He had also filed R.C.P. No. 4 of 2011 praying for a similar order of eviction in respect of the remaining portions of the same building, which is admittedly situate in Thalayolaparambu town.

(2.) The petitioner opposed the application contending inter alia that the need put forward is not bonafide and that the building does not require reconstruction. He also contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to sub -section (3) of Sec. 11 of the Act. Though the tenant had no contention in the counter statement that the landlord is in possession of other buildings in the same locality, town or village, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the said fact. The Advocate Commissioner after inspecting the petition schedule building as also the other buildings stated to be owned by the landlord, filed Ext. C1 report. The tenant or the landlord did not file objections to it.

(3.) Before the rent control court, the landlord examined himself as PW1, two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and produced and marked Exts. A1 to A17. The tenant examined himself as CPW1, two other witnesses CPW2 and CPW3 and produced and marked Exts. B1 to B3. The rent control court considered the rival contentions and held that the landlord has not succeeded in proving that the rent is in arrears. The rent control court also held that the building is in such a situation that it needs reconstruction. It also found that the need put forward by the landlord is bonafide. The rent control court repelled the plea of the tenant that the landlord has got other vacant buildings in his possession and therefore, in the absence of special reason, an order for eviction cannot be passed. The contention based on the second proviso was also repelled. An order for eviction was accordingly passed under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The appeal therefrom filed by the tenant as R.C.A. No. 60 of 2013 was dismissed by the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority -IV, Kottayam by judgment delivered on 9.6.2015. The tenant has, aggrieved thereby, filed this revision petition.