ANTONY Vs. KESAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the revision petitioner. The Rent Control Petition was filed by him against the first respondent herein (since deceased) and the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 8 under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and ll(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Before the Rent Control Court, the ground under Section 11(2)(b) was not pressed by the landlord. The Rent Control Court found that the bona fide need urged by the landlord is not genuine and dismissed the petition under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the Petition under Sections 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v). The tenants challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The landlord challenged the correctness of the finding under Section 11(3), in the appeal filed by the tenants. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. The direction for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) was modified by the Appellate Authority and the tenants were directed to surrender a portion of the petition schedule building to the landlord.

(2.) The case of the landlord is that the petition schedule building was taken on rent by the first respondent Kesavan and his since deceased brother Paran jointly as per Ext.Al rent deed. Each of the tenants was to pay Rs. 20/- per month to the landlord as rent. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to a total sum of Rs. 100/-. The tenants used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently. The wooden planks used as ceiling in one room were removed and those planks were used for construction of the residential building of Paran. A door was cut open inside the building so as to enter from one room to the other. It was also contended that one portion of the building was not used for more than six months and, therefore, the landlord would be entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v). The bona fide need urged by the landlord is that he bona fide needs the building to start a stationery and hardware business in the premises.

(3.) The tenants disputed the bona fide need. They also contended that the lease was not as per Ext.A1 rent deed. The building was taken on rent in 1950 by Kesavan and Paran from the father of the landlord fixing a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. In one room a grocery shop was being conducted and in the other room a tea shop was being run. The rent was subsequently enhanced. The building is being; used for the residence and the business by the tenants. The facts stated by the landlord to support the grounds for eviction under Sections 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) were also denied by the tenants.