SIRAJUDEEN Vs. CHAKRADHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant in RCP No.11/2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam confirmed in RCA 11/2014 of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mavelikkara is the revision petitioner herein. The revision was filed through his power of attorney holder. The petition was filed by the respondents for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the revision petitioner on the ground that the first petitioner was the owner of the property and the same has been assigned in favour of the respondents 2 and 3 by a registered document and they are technically qualified but unemployed and they bona fide require the petition schedule building and other portions of the same building for starting a business which has been let out to several tenants. Respondents also filed RCP No.12/2012, 13/2012 and 14/2012 for eviction of the respective rooms from other tenants on the same ground.

(2.) The revision petitioner herein entered appearance and filed counter contending that except those things are admitted other allegations are denied. He admitted the tenancy, he denied the bona fide need alleged and he had also contended that, he is solely depending on the income derived from the business and also there are R.C.Rev. 84 of 2017 no other suitable buildings available in the locality. He claimed the Second Proviso Protection under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord also claimed eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. All these cases were tried together and by a common order, the rent control court dismissed the application under Section 11(2)(b) and allowed the applications under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenants filed RCA Nos.9/2014, 10/2014 and 11/2014 and the rent control appellate authority by a common impugned judgment dismissed all the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by one of the tenants.

(3.) Heard Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, who is appearing for the revision petitioner. He had argued that, though the first respondent had a case that the property has been assigned in favour of respondents 2 and 3, no document has been produced. Further there is no allegation in the petition that the respondents 2 and 3 are dependant on the first respondent and without that such a plea, petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide need is not maintainable. This aspect has not been considered by the courts below properly. He had relied on the decision reported in Albert Mendez v. Rema Chandran (2007(3) KLT 23) in support of his case.