SREEDHARAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT PUNNAKKATTETHU VEEDU, THULAMPARAMPU CENTRE, HARIPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT Vs. GEORGE KUTTY, S/O. UNNOONNY, RESIDING AT PANACHAMOOTTIL THEKKATHIL, PUTHUKUNDAM MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant in O.P. (R.C.) No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Haripad, a petition filed by the respondent landlord for an order of eviction under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short.

(2.) The landlord had in the petition for eviction averred that he had purchased the petition schedule shop room as per Ext.A2 sale deed dated 22.9.2004, that he had thereafter let it out on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- to the tenant for the purpose of running a business in vegetables and that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears from September, 2006 onwards. He had also averred that he is working in the Pastry Department of a restaurant in Saudi Arabia and he intends to come back and settle down in his home town by starting a bakery business. He had further averred that he needs the petition schedule shop room to run a bakery, that he has no other suitable building in the locality to run the bakery business, that there are several vacant shop rooms available in Haripad Grama Panchayat for the tenant to shift his business, that the notice issued to the tenant calling upon him to surrender vacant possession of the shop room was returned unserved for the reason that he is working abroad and that he reliably understands that the tenant has sub let the petition schedule shop room to another person without his consent and knowledge.

(3.) Upon receipt of notice, the tenant filed objections contending inter alia that he has not kept the rent in arrears, that at the time of entrustment in the year 1992 he had paid the sum of Rs. 60,000/- as advance to the then owner, that the landlord had not informed him about the fact that he had purchased the building, that there is no rental agreement between him and the landlord, that the petition schedule shop room is not suitable for conducting a bakery business, that on the immediate northern side of the petition schedule shop room another bakery is being run and that the attempt of the landlord is only to evict him from the petition schedule shop room and to let it out to other persons on enhanced rent. He further contended that the landlord has got his own shop rooms at Karthikappally, that he is depending for his livelihood on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule shop room and that no other shop rooms are available in the locality to shift his business. He contended that he has not sub let the petition schedule shop room as alleged by the landlord and that the need put forward is not bonafide. He contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act.