K.K. BABY Vs. VALALIL SIDHARTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions arise from the proceedings in RCP No. 146/06 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. The said RCP was filed by the landlords, who are the revision petitioners in RCR No. 209/12, against the tenant, who has filed RCR No. 42/12. In RCP No. 146/06, the landlords sought eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The Rent Control Court by its order dated 29/11/2008 ordered eviction as prayed for. This order was challenged by the tenant by filing RCA No. 5/09 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, and, by judgment dated 4/11/11, confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act and reversed the order under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. It is aggrieved by these orders, the tenant has filed RCR No. 42/12 and to the extent the Appellate Authority has decided against them, the landlords have filed RCR No. 209/12.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that, according to the landlords, the petition schedule room was rented out to the 1st respondent in RCR No. 209/12 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/ -. The rent was in arrears from 25/5/2004 and despite notice, arrears were not paid. According to the landlords, the first petitioner in RCR No. 209/12, being a doctor, was carrying on his medical practice in a rented room at Kakkodi. He had decided to shift his medical practice to the petition schedule room and therefore they bona fide needed the room for the own occupation of the first petitioner in RCR No. 209/12. They contended that they had no other room in their possession for the said purpose. It was also contended by them that the tenant had in her ownership and possession, building Nos. 19/1775 and 19/1776, which were sufficient to carry on her business.

(3.) WE notice from the orders of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that while the landlords contended that rent was paid only up to 24/5/2004, according to the tenant, they had paid rent till January, 2006. Since the rent from February 2006 was deposited before court, the controversy regarding the arrears of rent was confined to the period from 25/5/2004 to January, 2006. This issue was examined by the lower authorities and both have concurrently found that despite the claim of the tenant that she had document evidencing payment of rent till January, 2006, she did not produce anything to substantiate the said contention. It was in the absence of any proof of payment of rent for the period in question that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority entered a finding against the tenant under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. This finding, in our view, does not suffer from any illegality for interference.