C.S. BALAN Vs. MEHARUNEESA C.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/tenant in R.C.P. No. 50 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Palakkad is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent herein is the landlady of the building which was let out to the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,250/ -. The building originally belonged to the husband of the landlady, Mohammed Asharaf. After his death, it devolved on her and her children. The building was taken on rent from late Asharaf by the revision petitioner herein for the purpose of conducting business in chips under the name and style M/s. Nisha Chips and the present rent of the building is Rs. 1,250/ - per month. After the death of Mohammed Asharaf, the tenant attorned to the present landlady and her children and he is continuing to pay the rent to her. There is no arrears of rent. The landlady has no business of her own. The landlady and her daughters are solely depending on the income of the landlady's son. At present he is also without any employment and he intends to start a business in automobile spare parts in the petition schedule building. So, they bona fide require the petition schedule building for starting the proposed business for the son of the landlady. The petition is filed for and on behalf of the other co -owners as well. They have no objection in the present landlady filing the application and also doing business in the premises. Though a notice has been issued to the tenant asking him to vacate the premises, he sent a reply with false allegations. He is having two other business places in the same town and he is manufacturing chips and also having retail shops for selling the same. Further, he had constructed an oven in the petition schedule building without the consent of the petitioner. Since the tenant did not vacate the premises, she has no other option but to file an application for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short.

(2.) The revision petitioner entered appearance and filed objection denying the allegations in the petition. According to him, he had taken the building on lease some 27 years back from one H. Abu, the father of Mohammed Asharaf and thereafter he was conducting business in the premises and thereby acquired a goodwill. He denied the allegation that the petitioner and her daughters are without any employment and they want to start a business in automobile spare parts with the help of the son of the landlady to eke out their livelihood. In fact, the petitioner's son is having his own employment and he does not want to do any business. The attempt of the petitioner is only to evict the present tenant from the petition schedule building and let out the same for higher rent to others. The allegation that he constructed an oven is not correct. He is eking out his livelihood from the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building and no other vacant buildings are available in the locality for shifting his business. So, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) The son of the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on her side. The respondent/tenant was examined as R.W. 1 and two other witnesses were examined as R.Ws. 2 and 3 and no documents were marked on his side. Ext. C1 the report of the Commissioner was also marked.