RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 59 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, a petition filed by the landlord for an order of eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short.

(2.) The landlord had in the petition for eviction averred that he is presently employed abroad, that he intends to come back and settle down in his native place and start a photo copying business in the petition schedule building. He contended that he bonafide needs the petition schedule building for that purpose. He had further averred that the tenant is not using the petition schedule building for the past more than two years, that he has recently sub -let the building to one Rajan who is conducting a hair cutting saloon therein, that the tenant has caused material alteration to the building and that he has kept the rent in arrears from August 1998 onwards.

(3.) The tenant opposed the application by filing a counter statement. He contended that at the time of entrustment the landlord had received the sum of Rs. 20,000/ - as advance, that rent upto July 1998 was paid to the landlord and that thereafter rent for six months was sent by Money Order but it was not received by the landlord. The tenant further averred that the landlord had earlier filed R.C.P. No. 52 of 2003, that thereafter the sum of Rs. 8,500/ - was paid on 17.11.2003 and a further sum of Rs. 420/ - was paid on 21.11.2003, that during the pendency of the rent control petition rent upto November 2003 was paid and that the sum of Rs. 2,520/ - being the rent for the period from December 2003 to May 2005 was sent by Money Order on 30.5.2005, but the landlord refused to receive it. The tenant further contended that the landlord's contention that he bonafide needs the petition schedule building for the purpose of starting a business, is only a ruse to evict him. The tenant denied the allegation that he has sub -let the building to Rajan and the further allegation that he has caused material alteration to the petition schedule building. He contended that he is running a business in the petition schedule building under the name and style "Sarathi Gents Beauty Parlour and that Rajan is only his employee. He also contended that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business being conducted by him in the petition schedule building and that no other suitable building is available in the locality.