E. P. SAINABA Vs. MUNDAYATAN KIZHAKKE VEETTIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the landlord against the decision of the appellate authority in RCA No. 167 of 2001. Rent Control Petition No. 22/1996 was filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenants under S.11(2)(b) and S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court allowed eviction under S.11(2)(b) and S.11 (3) of the Act. The Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court allowing eviction on grounds under S.11(3). After the appellate order, the tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent and all the sums to be paid and avoided eviction under S.11(2)(b). The parties to this revision are referred to as the landlord and the tenant.

(2.) The landlord, in continuation of the earlier rental arrangement with the tenant, executed a rent deed on 01/11/1992 by fixing Rs.350/- as the monthly rent. While the rental arrangement continued, the landlord on 29/03/1996 issued Ext. A2(a) suit notice demanding vacant possession of the building. In the rent control petition, the bona fide need alleged is for starting a medical shop for his son Rafeeq. His son Rafeeq had completed Pharmacy Course and wanted to run the business in the petition schedule building. The ground floor room was intended for conducting the medical shop and the upstair portion for storing medicines. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner has the financial capacity to start the business for his son. It is further averred that the respondent has defaulted in payment of rent and that the rent is in arrears. Therefore, the rent control petition was filed for eviction of the tenant under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The tenant contended before the Rent Control Court that the bona fide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine and is really a pretext for eviction. He also contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to S.11(3).

(3.) Before the Rent Control Court the petitioner was examined as PW 1, the advocate commissioner as PW 2 and the son of the landlord Sri Rafeeq as PW 3. Exts. A1 to A11 are marked on his side. The 2nd respondent was examined as RW 1, two witnesses as RWs 2 and 3 and Exts. B1 to B14 are marked.