SEBASTIAN JOSEPH Vs. ITTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Alathur is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the respondents herein are the landlords of the building. They have got five shuttered rooms in the down stair portion and it was let out to the revision petitioner, who is the respondent in the lower court, on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/ - as per Ext.A1 kaichit dated 30.9.2006. He is conducting a jewellery business therein. The respondents bonafide require the petition schedule building for staring a furniture business for the first respondent and they have no other building in their possession within the limits of Vadakkanchery town for the said purpose. They required the petition schedule building for the bonafide need of the first respondent. The petitioner is having many business and income and there are suitable buildings available in the locality. He is not solely depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. Though the respondents wanted the tenant to vacate the premises, he did not do the same. So they have no other option except to file an application for eviction under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called 'the Act' .

(3.) The revision petitioner, who is the respondent/tenant in the lower court, entered appearance and filed counter admitting the tenancy and also the rate of rent. He had contended that the need alleged is only a ruse for eviction and there is no bonafide need as such arises for the first petitioner in the lower court to start any business. They are having another building of their own, which is situated 250 meters away from the petition schedule building and it is in a commercial locality. Further there is vacant room available in the same building. If they want, they can occupy the same as well. When the landlords attempted to evict the tenant from the building forcibly, he filed O.S.No.210 of 2012 before the Munsiff Court, Alathur and obtained an order of injunction against forcible eviction. Aggrieved by the same, they have now filed the present petition for eviction with some imaginary need which in fact does not arise in the circumstances of the case.