KURIAN P.V. Vs. SUNNY JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rcr No. 237/2014 was filed by the tenant while RCR No. 283/2014 was filed by the landlord in RCP No. 55 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam. For the purpose of convenience, we are referring the status of the parties as 'landlord' and 'tenant' in these revisions. The landlord filed the application for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide need and subsequent acquisition of building by the tenant under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the "Act"). The case of the landlord was that the petition schedule building belongs to him and it was let out to the respondent by their mother on a rent of Rs. 950/- and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs. 1,550/- per month. The tenant paid rent up to August 2008 and thereafter kept the rent in arrears. The mother of the petitioner died and the petitioner and his sisters became the legal heirs of their mother and became the joint owners of the petition schedule building and the other legal heirs have relinquished their right over the property in his favour as per Sale Deed No. 6080/2010 dated 06/11/2010 of Kundara Sub Registrar's Office and he has become the sole owner of the petition schedule building. The respondent is conducting textile business in the petition schedule building and he had constructed a house near his own house and doing his present business there. It is situated half a kilometer away from the petitioner's building and he is not earning out his livelihood from the business conducted in the petition scheduled building and he has got sufficient space in the newly constructed building for conducting the business. The petitioner is a retired Administrative Officer from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and he is without any employment and he intended to start a business in household Articles in the petition scheduled building. The petitioner sent a notice to the tenant to vacate the premises stating these reasons, but he did not sent any reply. He had not vacated the premises as well. He has got sufficient experience and resource to start the business. Further he had also stated that the petition scheduled building is close to his residential building and if a door is provided on the southern wall of the building, he can have entrance to the petition scheduled building from his house and that will be convenient for him to conduct the business as well. So the petitioner filed application for eviction under Section 11(2)(b),11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

(2.) The respondent filed counter contending as follows:

(3.) The petitioner in the Rent Control Court was examined as P.W. 1 and Ext. 1 to A4 were marked on his side. The tenant was examined as RW1 and Ext. B1 to B9 were marked on his side. The Commissioner was examined as CW 1 and Exts. C1 and C1 (a) were marked through Court witness as Court documents. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below though raised a point as a ground for eviction under Section 11(2) of the Act, the same was not answered. No point for consideration was raised regarding the ground for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, though eviction was sought on that ground as well. Further after considering the evidence, the Court below only answered the question of bona fide need alone and came to the conclusion that the landlord is a wealthy person and he has no prior experience in conducting the business and held that the bona fide need alleged was not genuine and found that the tenant is earning out his livelihood from the income derived from the business conducted in the petition scheduled building and thereby he is entitled to get the second proviso protection under Section 11(3) of the Act and dismissed the application without answering the ground for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.