LAWS(KER)-2016-4-107

ABDUL RAHIM Vs. ABDUL LATHEEF

Decided On April 05, 2016
ABDUL RAHIM Appellant
V/S
ABDUL LATHEEF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.(OP) No.58 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam is the revision petitioner herein. The respondents/landlords filed the above rent control petition for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the revision petitioner/tenant on the ground of bonafide need under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are husband and wife and the petition schedule building belongs to them. The portion of the petition schedule building with Door No.720 was rented out to the respondent on 7.8.2011 for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.7,700/ - and a rental agreement was executed by the respondent in favour of the first petitioner on behalf of the second petitioner also. The portion of the building with door No.721 was also rented out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.700/ -. The respondent executed a rental agreement in favour of the first petitioner in respect of that portion also. The tenant is in possession of the petition schedule building from the year 1998 and the tenancy is being renewed from time to time by enhancing the rent by executing similar type of agreements. The petition schedule building was taken on rent for the purpose of conducting textile business by name "Rehinar Fabrics". The first petitioner was working abroad and now settled in his native place. He intends to start a business in ladies and kids wear shop of ready made garments. The first floor of the petition schedule building is also leased out. They have no other building in their possession. The petitioners' son Sajeev is now working abroad and he intends to come back and to start a business for his livelihood. He also depends upon his parents for that purpose. They have no other building of their own for their purpose. So, they decided to start a business jointly in the petition schedule building. Since they want the petition schedule building, they were not interested in renewing the lease agreement. So, they sent a notice to the tenant on 6.9.2012 demanding him to vacate the petition schedule premises. But he did not send any reply nor had he vacated the premises. But he filed a suit on the basis of a fabricated document, as O.S.No.633 of 2012 alleging that the lease was renewed on 7.7.2012 and 8.7.2012 and obtained an exparte order of injunction against forceful eviction. In fact, the lease was not renewed. He is not depending upon the income derived from the business being conducted in the petition schedule building for his livelihood and that there are other buildings available in the locality to shift his business. So, they filed the petition praying for eviction on the ground of bonafide need under section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) The revision petitioner herein entered appearance and filed counter statement contending as follows: The lease was renewed on 7.7.2012 and 8.7.2012 for a further period of 11 months and suppressing this fact the present petition has been filed. After execution of the document subsequent rent has been received as well.

(3.) The first petitioner before the rent control court was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on their side. The respondent was examined as RW1 and one witness was examined as RW2 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on his side.