VINEETHAN Vs. FATHIMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.P. No. 18 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Koyilandy is the revision petitioner herein. The original landlady filed R.C.P. No. 18 of 2012 seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide need for her grandson and cessation of occupation of the building by the tenant under Sec. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short. During the pendency of the petition, the landlady died and supplemental petitioners 2 to 4 were impleaded as her legal heirs. It is alleged in the petition that the original landlady leased out the building to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - as per a registered kychit dated 27.6.2003. He did not pay rent. So she filed R.C.P. No. 7 of 2004 and subsequently the same was settled between the parties and arrears of rent upto 27.2.2004 was paid. Thereafter the rent was kept in arrears. He has ceased to occupy the building for more than one year without any reasonable cause. The second petitioner's son Sri. Abdul Gafoor has no job and income for his livelihood. He requires the petition schedule building to start a stationery business. He has got sufficient experience in conducting the business. There are no other vacant building available in their possession. He is depending on the landlady for this purpose. The tenant is not eking out his livelihood from the income derived from the business and there are other buildings available in the locality. The landlady had sent a notice to the tenant asking him to surrender the building stating the above reasons. Though it was received by him, he did not send any reply. Since he had not vacated the premises, the original petitioner in the rent control court filed a petition for eviction on the above grounds.

(2.) The revision petitioner herein who is the respondent in the rent control petition entered appearance and filed a counter denying the allegations. He denied the allegation that rent from 27.2.2004 was in arrears. He had paid rent upto August 2011 and obtained proper receipts. Thereafter the rent was not received. So it happened to fall in arrears. The allegation that the lessee has stopped the business in the building for more than one year is not correct. He is conducting a welding shop and as such, there is no cessation of occupation as alleged. He denied the allegation that Sri. Abdul Gafoor, son of the second petitioner is depending on the original petitioner and he wanted to start a business in the petition schedule building. According to him, he is working in gulf country and he has no experience or financial capacity to conduct a stationery business. Even if there is any necessity for them, there are other buildings available in the possession of the petitioners. He is depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality to shift his business. He has spent more than Rs. 75,000/ - for erecting the machineries and getting three phase electric connection. He will put to serious hardship if eviction is ordered. Further, the attempt of the petitioners is only to evict him and to let out the building to others for higher rent. So he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) The person on whose bona fide need the petition schedule building was sought to be evicted was examined as P.W. 1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on their side. The tenant was examined as R.W. 1 and Exts. B1 to B7 were marked on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that there is no rent in arrears and the cessation of occupation has not been proved and denied eviction on those grounds but found that the bona fide need alleged is genuine and the tenant is not entitled to get proviso protection and ordered eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act.