T.A RAJULA Vs. T MANOJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant/respondent in R.C.P.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam is the revision petitioner herein. The landlord/respondent herein filed the rent control petition on the grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide need under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The case of the landlord in the petition was that the petition schedule building belongs to him by virtue of settlement deed No.1836 of 2007 of S.R.O., Kayamkulam. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a rental agreement whereby the petition schedule building was let out to the respondent for 11 months for a monthly rent of Rs.900/ -. The respondent is conducting a grocery business in the petition schedule building. The landlord is conducting business in a rented premises and the landlord of that building wants the petitioner to vacate the premises where he is conducting business. So, he wants to shift his business to the petition schedule building. He bonafide requires the petition schedule building for his own occupation to shift his business. He is paying rent at Rs.1,800/ - per month for the rented premises where he is conducting the business. Though the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the premises, since the respondent failed to vacate the premises, he had sent a notice terminating the tenancy arrangement and asking the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building after clearing arrears of rent. But she had not surrendered the building. So, the petitioner had no other option but to file an application for eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) The respondent/tenant entered appearance and filed objection contending that the petition is not maintainable. The petition schedule building belonged to Haji Hassan Yakoob Sait of Bunglow, Kayamkulam. From him, one Kassaim Pillai took the petition schedule building on rent. Kassim Pillai and his son Ibrahim Kutty were conducting business in onion in the petition schedule shop room. After the death of Kassim Pillai, Ibrahim Kutty carried on with the business before 1st April, 1940. Kassim Pillai fell ill and in continuation Ibrahim Kutty continued with the business. The mother of the petitioner got title over the property wherein the petition schedule building is situated. The respondent is conducting business in the petition schedule building in continuation of the business conducted by Kassim Pillai, his grandfather and then by Ibrahim Kutty, his son and so she is entitled to get the protection of section 11(17) of the Act. The allegation that the tenant is conducting business in the petition schedule building only from 16.8.2008 is not correct. The rental agreement was entered into with the petitioner only because she believed that he is having title but he has no title to the property. There is no landlord -tenant relationship. There is no rent in arrears. He had evaded accepting the rent and that was the reason why rent fell in arrears. The petitioner is conducting business in the shop room belonging to Adv. G. John in a profitable manner. That building is a modern building and there is no possibility for the petitioner to shift his business to the petition schedule building which is an old one. If she surrenders the petition schedule building, it will affect her goodwill and cause hardship in collecting the amounts due to her from her customers. The aim of the petitioner is to sell the petition schedule building after evicting the respondent. So, the petitioner is not entitled to get any eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. She prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) PWs.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the landlord and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. Exts.C1 and C1(a) and Ext.X1 were also marked on the side of the landlord. DWs.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the tenant and no documents were marked on her side.