VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. SAFIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by Tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlady sought eviction under Section 11 (2), 11 (3) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act' ). The Rent Control Court ordered eviction on all costs. The defeated tenant filed an appeal. In appeal, the order passed by the Rent Control Court under section 11 (3) was confirmed. Challenging the order of eviction passed under section 11 (3) of the Act, the tenant has come up in revision. Therefore, the only question is whether the order passed by the authorities below confirming the order of eviction passed for eviction under Section 11 (3) is correct?

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the tenant has taken out the tenanted premises for residential purposes only. He had taken out another premises from the parents of the landlady where he was carrying on a business. Since that building had to be vacated the business conducted therein was shifted to a portion of the residential building presently in his occupation. Even though the tenant contended that this was done with the permission of the landlady, no acceptable evidence is adduced to prove the same. On the other hand, the landlady contended that not only no permission was taken for conversion of the building for non-residential purposes, because of such illegal act even damage was also caused to the building and that is why she sought eviction under Section 11 (4) (ii) of the act. The bona fide need as alleged by the landlady is that she is residing with her brothers, now she wants to live separately in her own house and except the petition schedule building, she has no other house. This bona fide need as alleged has been supported by the evidence adduced by the landlady herself. Both the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authority found that the bona fide need alleged in the rent control petition has been proved. We also find that finding regarding the bona fide need of the landlady cannot in any way be doubted.

(3.) IT was then contended by the revision petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso since in a portion of the building he is carrying on a business and he has no other income for his livelihood other than the income derived from the business conducted therein. But the appellate authority did not accept the said contention for the reason that the petitioner did not seek any permission for conversion of a portion of the building for non-residential purposes and no petition was also filed under Section 17 of the act before the Accommodation Controller. So long as it is not proved by the tenant that any permission was obtained from the landlord for conversion of the portion of the building for doing any business, the finding of the court below in this regard has to be found correct. Therefore, the use of the building for non-residential purposes is contrary to the arrangement between the tenant and the landlady. No permission, under Section 17, of the Accommodation Controller was also obtained. In these circumstances, a tenant who has violated the terms of the lease as also the statutory provisions contained under Section 17 of the Act, cannot be heard to contend that he is still entitled to seek the benefit of the second proviso, taking advantage of his own wrong committed to the landlady.