PAPPAN MASTER Vs. P.M BALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/tenant in R.C.P.No.142 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thalassery is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent, as landlord, has filed the application for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the revision petitioner herein on the grounds of sub lease, effecting construction affecting the value and utility of the building and additional accommodation under sections 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The respondent herein had alleged in the petition that the petition schedule building was let out to an organisation called Kairali Sports, Arts and Vayanasala for running a reading room as per kachit dated 19.7.2003. At the time when the building was let out, one P.K. Jayaprakasan was the secretary. Now the revision petitioner herein is the secretary. The landlord is conducting sale of fertilizers in the neighbouring rooms in the same building and the space occupied by him is not sufficient for running his business. He wants to develop his business and due to lack of space, more stock could not be stored in the building. So, he requires the petition schedule building as additional accommodation for running his business. The tenant is not using the petition schedule building for the last more than one year and he had sub let the petition schedule building to third parties and getting higher rent without the consent and knowledge of the landlord/respondent herein. There are other suitable buildings available in the locality for their purpose as well. Further, the tenant had made additional constructions in the petition schedule building without the consent of the landlord which has reduced the utility and value of the building materially and permanently and caused damage to the building. The balavadi cannot be permitted to be conducted in the petition schedule premises as it will cause damage to the building and also affect the health of the children. So, the landlord sent a notice on 10.10.2010 calling upon the tenant to terminate the sub lease and to restore the building to the original position removing the additional construction and vacate the premises on the ground of additional accommodation. The respondent/tenant sent a reply with false allegations alleging that the landlord is in possession of other vacant room and since he demanded exorbitant rent for which the tenant was not amenable, the need has been alleged. Since the tenant did not vacate the premises, the landlord filed the application for eviction under sections 11(8), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

(2.) The revision petitioner who is the respondent in the court below entered appearance and filed a counter statement admitting the execution of the kachit dated 19.7.2003 by the then Secretary for and on behalf of the vayanasala. They have further contended that the landlord had no intention to expand his business and that has been made as a ruse to evict the tenant from the petition schedule building. He is also having sufficient space in the place where he is now conducting business and some other room is also there in his possession for that purpose. The tenant is using the petition schedule building as a public reading room and so many children and people of the locality are using the said reading room. The allegation of sub lease is not correct. Balavadi is not functioning in the petition schedule building and the tenant is still running the vayanasala in the petition schedule building. There are no other buildings available in the locality and the construction was done with the consent of the landlord and it will not affect the value and utility of the building. So, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) Since there was some mistake in the building number, it was corrected by filing I.A.No.1674 of 2011 as building Nos.15/475 and 15/476 instead of 15/275 and 15/286 mentioned in the petition. The respondent filed an additional counter statement denying the allegations in the rent control petition. They also stated that no notice was sent to them to vacate building No.15/474. They disputed the identity of the petition schedule building as well and prayed for dismissal of the petition.