ISSAC MATHEW Vs. G. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the defeated tenant in RC (OP) No. 43 of 2012, confirmed in RCA No. 10 of 2014 of the Rent Control Court, Kollam and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam respectively. RC (OP) No. 43/2012 was tried along with RC (OP) Nos. 20/2012, 34/2012 and 37/2012. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction in all the cases and the revision petitioner was directed to surrender vacant possession of the buildings. More particularly, in RCP No. 43/2012, the subject -matter of this revision, Rent Control Court has ordered eviction under Sec. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The revision petitioner herein aggrieved by the said order of eviction, preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam by filing RCA No. 10/2014. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 22/03/2014 has affirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. Brief facts for the disposal of this revision are as follows:

(2.) The respondent land lady has filed the eviction petition on the ground that the petition schedule building and three other rooms on the ground floor are needed for her bona fide occupation for starting a business in manufacture and sale of garments along with her husband Gopalakrishnan. The rent payable for the petition schedule room is Rs. 500/ - and the same was in default from September, 2004 onwards. There upon notice was issued seeking the revision petitioner to vacate the building for the bona fide own occupation of the respondent and to pay the arrears of rent which has fallen due. The revision petitioner refused to comply with the directions in the notice issued and there upon the respondent herein has filed the Rent Control Petition seeking order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) and 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The revision petitioner has filed objection contending that he is using the petition schedule room for running an institute in the name and style "V Institute" and that the original lease arrangement was with the father of the revision petitioner and further that the institute was started in the year 1941. The institute is offering different types of courses and that many students are studying in the said institute and since the same is an educational institution, the respondent has no legal right for filing an eviction petition against the educational institution under the provisions of the Act. It was also contended that the bona fide need sought for by the respondent is not at all true or correct. The title of the landlady to the petition schedule building is also denied by the revision petitioner even though not on specific terms, on the ground that OS No. 397/2000 was pending before the Subordinate Judges Court, Kollam seeking partition of the property.

(3.) Apart from the same, the tenant sought protection of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act, contending that there are no buildings available in the locality reasonably sufficient for the use and occupation of the revision petitioner and further that, the income generated from the building is the sole source of livelihood of the petitioner. The respondent has also taken out a commission. Joint trial of all the cases were conducted. Respondent examined herself as PW 1, Advocate Commissioner was examined as PW 2 and Gopalakrishnan was examined as PW 3. Exts. A1 to A22 were marked on the side of the respondent. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the tenants and Exts. B1 to B19 documents were marked and Exts. C1, C1(a) and C1(b), commission reports were also marked. Revision petitioner has not mounted the box. The Rent Control Court after appreciating the evidence, documents and the rival contentions of the parties has found that, 1st respondent was entitled to eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, having found that the schedule building was bona fidely required for the use and occupation of the respondent and arrears of rent as claimed have fallen due. Thus aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after evaluating the evidence, documents and the law involved in the subject -matter, re -appreciated the entire evidence and came to a conclusion that, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court was in the right direction and therefore, there was no scope for any interference in the order passed. It is thus aggrieved, this revision is filed by the petitioner.