RAGHAVAKURUP Vs. KAKKARAMMAL RATNAKUMARI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent findings of the authorities below that the landlord in RCP No. 3 of 2010 is entitled for an order of eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises under sub-section (8) of Sec. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) is under challenge before us in revision by the tenant on the ground that the authorities below have erred legally as well as factually in arriving at the same.

(2.) RCP No. 3 of 2010 was filed by the respondent/landlord seeking eviction against the petitioner/tenant on the ground of additional accommodation under sub-section (8) of Sec. 11 of the Act. The parties to the revision will be referred to hereinafter as the landlord and the tenant in accordance with their original status in the RCP.

(3.) The claim of the landlord was that the space in shop room No. PP1/690 wherein his business in utensils is being run is insufficient and in order to expand the same, the vacant surrender of the petition schedule room bearing No. PP1/689-A which was taken on rent by the respondent and wherein a studio is being run by him is needed. The specific contention of the tenant in the RCP was that the petition schedule room together, with two other adjacent rooms were taken by him on rent from one A.G. Kunhikrishnan Nair and the present landlord has stepped into his shoes on purchasing the same from him. It is also contended that the tenancy created with the original landlord being of a permanent nature, the latter landlord will only be entitled to receive the monthly rent originally fixed as Rs.25.00. The further contentions raised were that the petition schedule room having been converted into a dark room after modification and electrification by spending Rs.50,000.00 has become an integral part of his business of running a studio, that the income therefrom is his main source of income, that other rooms are not available in the locality answering the suitability and sufficiency of the requirement of his business, and that the comparative hardships that would be caused to him on an order of eviction being passed in favour of the landlord would outweigh the advantages of the landlord. Both parties adduced evidence to support their rival contentions. The landlord had let in oral evidence as PW 1 and adduced documentary evidence as Exts. A1 to A20. The tenant's evidence is confined to his oral testimony and Exts. B1 series and B2. Exts. C1 to C4 were also marked as Court Exhibits.