PANHATTUKANDI MEETHAL SARASA Vs. MAKKOOTTATHIL NAFEESA UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant/respondent in R.C.P. No. 47 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Koyilandy is the revision petitioner herein. The petition was filed by the landlady for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide need and cessation of occupation under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The case of the landlady in the petition was that the building was let out to the respondent as per agreement dated 20.3.2009 on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/ - and the present rent of the building is Rs. 1,050/ - per month. She had kept the rent in arrears and she ceased to occupy the building for the last several months without any reasonable cause and on account of the non user, damage has been caused to the building. The petitioner's daughter -in -law is without any job or income and she wants to start a stationery business to eke out her livelihood. She is depending on the petitioner for this purpose and no other suitable buildings are available in her possession for that purpose. The respondent is not eking out her livelihood from the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and there are other vacant buildings available in the locality. So, the landlady filed the application for eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act.

(2.) The revision petitioner/respondent in the court below appeared and filed counter statement contending that the lease was taken from the father of the landlady by her husband and he was conducting business in the premises till his death on 30.7.2008. Thereafter a rent deed was executed in her name. The landlady demanded Rs. 50,000/ - as advance after the death of the husband of the respondent. She paid the amount and thereafter the rent deed was executed. The allegation that the rent is in arrears is not correct. She has been paying the rent regularly. The allegation that she is not occupying the building without any reasonable cause for several months is not correct. The bona fide need alleged is also not correct. The petitioner is in possession of other buildings and there is no necessity for the daughter -in -law of the landlady to start any business. It is only as a ruse to evict the tenant that the claim has been made. She has also contended that she is depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and there are no other buildings available in the locality to shift the existing business. She prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) The person on whose behalf the bona fide need was put up, was examined as P.W. 1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the landlady. The respondent/tenant was examined as R.W. 1 and Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on her side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that the petitioner is not entitled to get eviction under Sec. 11(2)(b) of the Act and denied the claim for eviction on that ground. But the court below found that the landlady is entitled to get an order of eviction under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act and passed an order of eviction on these grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 36 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode which was made over to the I Addl. District Court, Kozhikode for disposal and the appellate authority found that the landlady is not entitled to get an order of eviction under Sec. 11(4)(v) of the Act and denied eviction on that ground, but confirmed the order of eviction passed under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant in the court below.