CHERIYAKONATH HYDERALI Vs. NARANGALLIL VELLUVAKANDY SAINABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.P.No.353 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur is the revision petitioner herein. The landlady/respondent herein filed the above rent control petition seeking eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the revision petitioner on the ground of bonafide need under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. It was alleged in the petition that the petition schedule building belongs to her and it was entrusted to the revision petitioner/tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/ - as per a kachit dated 6.3.2010. She is without any employment. She knows garment making. She intends to start a garment making business of her own to eke out her livelihood for herself and for her family, in the petition schedule building. Since she is an expert tailor, she has the confidence that she can profitably set up a garment making business in the petition schedule building. There is no other building in her possession for that purpose. Though the petitioner wanted the respondent to surrender the building, since he had sub let the building to one E.P. Sameer, she sent a notice to terminate the sub lease and surrender possession as she bonafide requires the petition schedule building. The tenant sent a reply with false allegations. Thereafter he came with mediators and stated that he had already terminated the sub lease and he wanted some more time to vacate the premises. There are other buildings available in the locality but he had not vacated the premises. So, the petitioner had no other option except to approach the court for eviction on the ground of bonafide need and hence she filed a petition for eviction.

(2.) The revision petitioner who is the respondent in the court below entered appearance and filed a counter statement denying the allegation that the building was let out originally on an oral lease and thereafter by a kachit dated 6.3.2010. He also denied the averment that the agreed rent was Rs.1,800/ -. He denied the allegation that the landlady is without any employment and she has no other source of income to meet her livelihood, etc. The allegation that she is a tailor capable of doing garment business, etc. are also not correct and hence denied. It is also alleged that the landlady is in possession of another building where she can start the business. The allegation of sub lease was also denied. He had sent a reply to the notice issued showing the real state of affairs. In fact, the building was taken on lease from the uncle of the petitioner in the year 2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/ - and thereafter the petitioner purchased the building from her uncle in the year 2009. After purchasing the same, alleging sub lease and bonafide need, a notice had been issued for which he sent a reply. Though notice was issued earlier, no action was taken. In the year 2012 she demanded unreasonable enhancement of rent for which he was not amenable. So, she filed the present petition with false allegation of bonafide need. The petitioner is a pardanishin lady not appearing in public life and as such there is no possibility for her to conduct a business in the petition schedule building. She is also residing 15 kms. away from the petition schedule building. The tenant/revision petitioner is eking out his livelihood from the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building and there are no other buildings available in the locality to shift his business. So, the petitioner is not entitled to get eviction and he prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on her side. The respondent was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the rent control court found that the need alleged by the landlady is genuine and bonafide and the tenant is not entitled to get the proviso protection and allowed the application under section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.128 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order of eviction passed under section 11(3) of the Act by the impugned judgment dated 9.10.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the unsuccessful tenant in the courts below.