ABDUL SALAM Vs. KADEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom the respondents have obtained an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short, 'the Act'), which stands confirmed in appeal. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings whereby the courts below granted eviction under Section 11(3) are challenged in this Revision. (The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition.)

(2.) The landlord-tenant relationship is not disputed. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner has a temporary job as driver and the third petitioner has no job or any kind of avocation for his livelihood. The only income of their family is the earning of the second petitioner and the rent from the shop rooms. Hence the third petitioner needs the petition schedule shop rooms for starting a workshop-cum-spare parts sales shop. The respondent is not depending on the income from the business in the petition schedule shop rooms and there are many vacant buildings and shop rooms in the locality for shifting the business of the respondent from the petition schedule shop rooms.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondent contended that the bona fide need claimed by the petitioners is a ruse for eviction only and he is mainly depending on the income derived from his business in the petition schedule shop rooms. The petition schedule shop rooms form a part of the building, which consists of five rooms, and at the time of filing the petition, the petitioners were in possession of one vacant room, which was surrendered by another tenant, by name Ali Akbar. Earlier, the said room was let out to Ali Akbar for running a tea stall & cool bar and he had surrendered the said room to the petitioners before the filing of the RCP and it was let out to one Pramod and now he is running a tailoring shop and lottery ticket sales agency in that room. The third petitioner is an autorikshaw driver having sufficient means. The second petitioner has a goods autorikshaw. The petition is filed on the refusal of the respondent to give exorbitant rent demanded by the petitioners. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court found that the need put forward by the petitioners is a bona fide one and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.