JAYANANDAN Vs. MANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent in R.C.P. No. 49 of 2006 is the revision petitioner in R.C.R. No. 10 of 2016 while respondents 1, 3 to 5 in the same case are the revision petitioners in R.C.R. No. 59 of 2016. Respondents 1 to 4 herein as petitioners/landlords filed R.C.P. No. 49 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Palakkad seeking eviction of the petition schedule rooms namely door Nos. 11/10(9) and 11/10(10) in a building complex by name Balakrishna Complex by the side of G.B. Road in Palakkad town which is in the possession of the respondents on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide need and causing damage to the building which affected the utility permanently and materially under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter called 'the Act' for short.

(2.) The allegation in the petition was that these two rooms were let out to the father of the respondents in the lower court on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 1,200/ - respectively as fixed by this court in C.R.P. No. 559 of 1998 from 23.8.1990. The building was got evicted on the ground of reconstruction earlier by filing R.C.P. No. 41 of 1982 and later since there was some dispute between the landlords and the original tenant namely Sukumaran, on the basis of the application filed by him as I.A. No. 3001 of 1989, the rent control court directed the landlords to give these petition schedule rooms to him. As per the order in R.C.P. No. 110 of 1990, the fair rent of the building was fixed as Rs. 600 and Rs. 400 respectively and thereafter in revision filed against that order, this court has refixed the amount as Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 1,200/ - respectively with effect from 1.7.1997.

(3.) After the death of the original tenant Sukumaran, the respondents in the court below were in the possession of the buildings as tenants. The rent from 23.8.1990 was in arrears. They have willfully kept the rent in arrears. Though notice was issued on 29.7.2004, they did not pay the amount. The first petitioner is running a business for the last eight years in the name and style 'Anupama Jewellery and Watches' at G.B. Road and the second petitioner is running a business for the last six years in the name and style 'Sreeraj Jewellery' at T.B. Road. Both the petitioners were doing their business in tenanted premises. They wanted to expand their business and they are not able to expand the business with the available space in their building. So they require the petition schedule rooms bonafide for the purpose of doing business in gold and silver ornaments and watches.