PATHUMMAKUTTY AND ORS. Vs. ALIKKAL SUHARA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the respondent/tenant in R.C.P. No. 4 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Perinthalmanna, a petition filed by respondents 1 to 3/landlords praying for an order of eviction under Sec. 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short. They had in the rent control petition averred that the petition schedule building originally belonged to Sainudheen, husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, that he was running a textile shop under the name and style 'Varnam Textiles' in one of the three rooms in the ground floor of the building of which the petition schedule rooms are a part, that he passed away on 5.10.2005, that after Sainudheen's death, the textile business was stopped and a business under the name and style 'Apsara Hardwares' was started. In the rent control petition, the tenanted premises was described in the A schedule and the room in the possession of the landlord wherein they were conducting a business under the name and style 'Apsara Hardwares' was described in the B schedule.

(2.) The landlords had in the rent control petition averred that their business is prospering and that they need the petition schedule shop rooms to expand their business. They had in the rent control petition averred that though there are three rooms in the first floor of the building, the said rooms have been let out to tenants. They had also contended that the said rooms are not suitable for the expansion of their business, the reason being that the rooms are situate in the first floor of the building. They had further averred that the petition schedule rooms are situate adjacent to the B schedule room wherein they are conducting a hardware business. Upon receipt of notice, the tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement wherein the tenant denied and disputed the need put forward by the landlords. He contended that the rooms in the upstairs portion of the building are lying vacant. He has also contended that the first petitioner in the rent control petition is not conducting a business under the name and style 'Apsara Hardwares'.

(3.) Before the rent control court, the first petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Secretary of the Angadipuram Grama Panchayat was examined as PW2. The landlords also produced and marked Exts.A1 to A5. The tenant examined himself as DW1 and produced and marked Exts.B1 to B3. On application filed by the tenant, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the petition schedule building. The report submitted by him after his inspection was marked as Ext. C1 and the report and sketch submitted by her after another round of inspection pursuant to the objections raised by the landlords were marked as Ext. C2 and C2(a) respectively.