A V M LTD Vs. SUNIL P SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the tenant is a limited company, can it claim the protection envisaged under the second proviso to S. 11 (3)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the "act " ). That is the question mainly involved in this revision. The respondents-landlords filed a petition under Ss. 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Act for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation.

(2.) IT is the case of the landlords-petitioners before the rent Controller that the petition schedule building bearing door,n o. 37/1943 of the Cochin Corporation was jointly owned by them and that the tenant-respondent took it on lease for a period of three years from 1-6-1984, and agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 850/ -. In a partition effected between the petitioners and others on 4-1-1987 the petition schedule building was set apart to the share of the first petitioner and this fact was intimated to the tenant-company at Madras. At the time of letting out the building first petitioner was doing his Master's degree in Surgery at Chandigarh , and it is his case that the first petitioner wanted to set up his practice at Ernakulam after the completion of the course in January, 1987. For the said purpose the period of lease was stipulated as three years in the rent deed. This fact was intimated to the tenant by the father of the petitioners. The first petitioner has completed his studies and intended to settle down at Ernakulam with his wife and mother, who are depending upon him for their accommodation. IT was stated by the petitioners that there was no building in the City in the name of the first petitioner, his wife and mother. In fact, the respondent-tenant failed to pay rent from 1-6-1987 and that a lawyer notice was issued demanding vacant possession.

(3.) THE main contention raised by learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant is that the tenant is a limited company and there is no other alternative accommodation available in the locality to which its business can be shifted, and also that the tenant is depending for its livelihood mainly on the income from the business carried on in this building. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the second proviso to S. 11 (3) to establish his case, which reads as follows: "provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business:" It is clear from the above proviso that even if a landlord establishes that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation, the rent Control Court shall not give any direction to put the landlord in possession, if the tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building, and there is no suitablebuilding available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. THE aforesaid second proviso can apply only in the case of a tenant who is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from his trade or business.