REGY V.EDATHIL Vs. HUBERT LESLIE D CRUZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord in R.C.P.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kochi is the revision petitioner herein. The rent control petition was filed by the landlord for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the respondent on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short).

(2.) The case of the petitioner in the petition was that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the tenanted premises with No.16/990T, which is part of a larger building known as 'Edathil Buildings'. It is a three storied building facing P.T.Jacob Road on its south. The ground floor of the building belongs to the petitioner and the first and the second floor belong to his mother and brother respectively. The respondent is in possession of the petition schedule building on a monthly rent of 1,320/ - and other rooms in the petition schedule building are in the occupation of other tenants. The petitioner has decided to start a business in computer services of his own in the petition schedule building to augment his income. He is unemployed and he has no other business. The petition schedule building is one of the four rooms in the front portion of the building in the ground floor facing the main road. It was let out to the respondent for running a bakery in the year 2007 for a period of 11 months from 01.01.2007. Thereafter he abandoned the bakery business and closed the same for sometime and thereafter converted the petition schedule building as a branch office for his out door catering service. When the petitioner decided to start the aforesaid business in the petition schedule room, he informed the respondent about his need and requested him to surrender the petition schedule building. He wanted some time to surrender the room. In the meantime the tenants who were occupying the rooms with Nos.16/990L and 16/990M situated on the back portion of the ground floor of the aforesaid 'Edathil Buildings', expressed their intention to vacate those two rooms. Since they are situated in the back portion of the building, they are not suitable for the petitioner to start his business. When respondent came to know about the proposed surrender, he expressed his desire to shift his business to one of the rooms and the petitioner was also willing to offer one of the rooms to him on payment of fair rent. He agreed to vacate the premises in the month of January, 2011. As promised the tenants of room No.16/990L and 16/990M, vacated the premises in the month of January, 2011. When this was intimated to the respondent, he delayed the surrender on one pretext or other and now it is understood that he has no intention to vacate the premises. The intention to start the business in computer service is bonafide and urgent, he is qualified and having knowledge in that field. If the petition schedule building is obtained for that purpose, the same can be used profitably. The respondent is having other business and also having other place of business. A large number of vacant rooms are available in the locality to shift the business of the respondent. He is not eking his livelihood from the petition schedule building as well. The petition schedule building is the first room from the western end facing P.T.Jacob Road and it is most suitable for the petitioner to start his business. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, he has no option but to file the application for eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent appeared and filed a counter wherein after admitting that petitioner is the owner of the building and he is his tenant in respect of that building, he contended as follows: The respondent started his business along with his father in the room owned by the father of the petitioner by name, Sri.Valsan Edathil, in the year 1981. It was situated om P.T.Jacob Road, facing the main road with four shop rooms, each having a carpet area of 175 square feet. In the year 1997, after demolishing the said building, the owner of the building Sri.Valsan Edathil constructed a new shopping cum office complex in the back side of the old room. While vacating the earlier shop room, the owner Sri.Valsan Edathil and the petitioner herein had promised to give a shop room having a bigger area in the front portion of the new building. As agreed earlier, the respondent and his father vacated the old building and moved to the new building. But after constructing the new building, contrary to the earlier agreement, petitioner and his father Sri.Valsan Idathil had given a shop room having only an extent of 100 square feet, which is smaller than the earlier room. Only one tenant M/s. Fashion Flowers was given a shop room having an area of 200 square feet in the front portion as promised by the petitioner. Other earlier tenants like M/s.Bombay Saloon was given a side room having an area of 100 square feet and M/s.Matha Medicals was given a room in the front portion having the area of 100 square feet. The allegation regarding the ownership of the first and second floor of the building with the mother and the brother of the petitioner is not known to him and it has to be proved by the petitioner himself. The averment that the period of tenancy expired long back and he is holding over the same without the authority etc., is false and denied. He is regularly paying the rent without default and the rent is now enhanced to 1,320/ -.