KUDAKAYINTAVIDE POCKER Vs. MAVULLATHIL AVULLA HAJI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has filed this revision challenging the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The landlord had sought eviction of the tenant who is conducting a restaurant in the tenanted premises on grounds under Sec. 11(3) and 11(4(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the 'Act' for short). The tenant resisted the claim of the landlord alleging that the need was not bonafide. The Rent Control Court tried RCP5/2011, considered the evidence on record and found against the landlord on the ground under Sec. 11(4)(i) of the Act. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. Both the tenant as well as the landlord challenged the order of the Rent Control Court before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta in RCA 1/2013 & 3/2013. After a re -appreciation of the evidence the Rent Control Appellate Authority has dismissed both the appeals. It is against the said judgment that this revision is filed.

(2.) According to Adv. John Joseph Vettikad who appears for the revision petitioner tenant, the landlord in the present case does not require the tenanted premises for the need that is put forward. The need according to the landlord is for the purpose of his son to start a hotel business. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord's son who was examined as P.W.2 has admitted in the box that he owns several shop rooms, in his individual capacity. Therefore, according to the learned counsel he is not dependent on his father for even the tenanted shop room. The learned counsel submits that the tenant is not a tenant of the son but the tenant of the father. He could very well seek eviction of one of his tenants. It is not open to him to seek eviction of his father's tenant for satisfying his personal need. According to the counsel, this is an aspect that has not been considered by the authorities below. Therefore, it is contended that the orders of eviction passed by the authorities below require to be interfered with in revision. A caveat has been filed and Adv. Mohammed Nias enters appearance for the first respondent. We have heard the caveator also. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent this is not a case in which, the landlord had suppressed the ownership of his son over the other shop rooms. It is a fact that has been disclosed in the Rent Control Petition. However, ownership of other shop rooms would not disentitle the landlord from seeking vacant possession of the tenanted premises for the reason that the said rooms are all occupied by other tenants. It is not open to the tenant in the present case to dictate that it was for PW2 to initiate proceedings against his tenants, for satisfying his need of starting a hotel business. It is also pointed out that, the rooms owned by the son of the landlord are not suitable for conduct of the business that is proposed to be started. According to the learned counsel, though the Advocate Commissioner had conducted an inspection, the tenant was not in a position to point out any vacant room either in the possession of the landlord or his son. The tenant had not filed any objection to the commission report also. Therefore, it is contended that the grounds now raised are also without any basis. The son, according to the learned counsel is depending on his father, the landlord for a suitable premises to start the proposed business.

(3.) Heard. We have been taken through the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We notice that both the authorities have referred to and considered the evidence on record. We are of the opinion that the evidence has been considered in the proper perspective. Though it is true that the landlord's son, PW2 owns other shop rooms close to the tenanted premises, it is in evidence that the said shop rooms are all occupied by the tenants.