PANDAN SAJEEVAN Vs. M.K. PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.P. No. 81 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent herein is the landlady of the petition schedule building. The petition was filed by the landlady for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the tenant under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The allegation was that the petition schedule building belongs to the petitioner and others and she was managing the property on behalf of the other co -owners.

(2.) The tenant took the petition schedule building on lease as per the rent deed dated 4.1.1991 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. The landlady bonafide requires the petition schedule building to start an agency business by the co -owners. The petition schedule building and the adjacent room are required for conducting the business in agency for the son of the petitioner as well as the children of the petitioner's husband's brother's children Harikumar and Sreekumar. They agreed to take initiative for forming a partnership concern to augment the income of the family and the co -owners. Though the respondent herein requested the revision petitioner to vacate the premises, he did not concede for the same. There is no other building available in her possession for that purpose and there are suitable buildings available in the locality for shifting the business of the revision petitioner. So, the landlady had no other option except to file an application for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) The revision petitioner who was the respondent in the rent control court, entered appearance and filed a counter statement admitting the tenancy and also the rate of rent. He also contended that rent upto December 2009 was paid. There is no bonafide need for the petitioner. The petitioner is a bank employee and she cannot conduct any agency business. She is not having any knowledge about running such business. She is financially sound and is not depending upon any such business for augmenting income for her. Her intention is only to sell the property after evicting the tenant. The revision petitioner is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business being carried on in the petition schedule building and there are no suitable buildings available in the locality to shift his business. So, he prayed for dismissal of the application.