A S PARVATHY KRISHNAN Vs. JOSEPH ALIAS JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the revision petitioner. She filed the Rent Control Petition before, the Rent Control Court, Thrissur under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(4)(iii) and dismissed the petition under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. The tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the order under Section 11(4)(iii). The landlord filed a Memorandum of Cross Objection challenging the findings of the Rent Control Court under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8). The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the tenant and dismissed the Memorandum of Cross Objection filed by the landlord. Thus the Rent Control Petition stood dismissed.

(2.) The parties are referred to in the rank in which they are arraigned in the Rent Control Petition. The petition schedule building was let out to one Mathew, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The first respondent is his widow and respondents 2 to 8 are the children of Mathew. The lease was in the year 1968 fixing a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 75/- as per the order in R.C.P. No. 181 of 1978.

(3.) According to the petitioner, tenants failed in payment of rent from December, 1996 onwards. The petition schedule building consisting of several rooms faces the public road on the eastern side. The petition schedule building is room No. 29/670. Room on the northern side of the petition schedule building is in possession of the petitioner where an STD booth is being run. The room on the further north is occupied by the petitioner's husband, who is retired Engineer. On the rear side of the petition schedule building, there is a two storeyed residential building, which was reconstructed in the year 1994. That residential building was let out to tenants. The way leading to the said residential building was let out to tenants. The way leading to the said residential building was provided towards the northern side and thereafter, towards east leading to the public road on the eastern side. On the northern side of the said residential building, the house of the petitioner is situated, in which, she is residing. The tenants in the residential building on the southern side used the way in front of the house of the petitioner so as to reach the public road. It is stated that this causes much difficulty to the petitioner. She wants to provide a separate way to the tenants of the residential building. She bona fide requires the petition schedule building for providing a passage to the tenanted residential building situated on the rear side of the petition schedule building. On demand by the petitioner, the tenants agreed to vacate, but later, resiled from the promise. The bona fide requirement projected by the petitioner is to remove the shutter on the eastern side and wall on the western side of the petition schedule building so that a passage could be formed to the rear side of the building.