K P ALI Vs. PULIKKALAKATH SUBAIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rent control revision is filed by the tenant against the judgment in R.C.A.No.134 of 2013 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge-III, Kozhikode. The respondent-landlady had preferred R.C.P.No.181 of 2012 before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode seeking eviction of the tenant under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2 of 1965'). The rent control petition was allowed in part ordering eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant. The appeal preferred by the revision petitioner was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) In the rent control petition, the contention of the petitioner- landlady is as follows:-

(3.) The respondent appeared and filed objections opposing the application. He admitted the landlord-tenant relationship. However, according to him, the room was taken on rent on 15.02.1993 by fixing a monthly rent of Rs.150/- per month. He had paid the rent up to August 2010 by paying Rs.20,500/- directly to the petitioner on 12.09.2010 for which receipt was issued by the petitioner, which was produced along with the counter affidavit. He has further stated that he had not sublet the building to CPI(M) or to anybody else. It is contended that the respondent has been conducting the business of coconut fibre and coconut shell therein and that he is depending mainly on the income derived from the business for his livelihood. It is contended that the petition schedule shop room was subjected to fire due to short circuit. Since the room was substantially damaged, it was renovated by the respondent as per the instruction of the landlady by incurring an expense of Rs.78,500/- on the undertaking that the amount would be adjusted with the rent. The landlady is liable to pay some amount to the tenant in the above said transaction. So he prayed for dismissal of the petition.