K M PREM RAJ Vs. JAYAVATHY SWAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the counter petitioner in R.C.P. No.27 of 2011 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the appellant in R.C.A. No.3 of 2013 on the files of the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The parties are referred to as in the RCP.

(2.) The aforesaid petition was filed by the petitioner/respondent herein seeking eviction of the counter petitioner/revision petitioner herein from the plaint schedule property under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). According to the petitioner/respondent herein she is the owner of the petition schedule building and the ground floor and car shed of the same were let out to the counter petitioner by virtue of Exts.A2 and A3. The counter petitioner is a builder by profession doing construction work and when he required more space for smooth functioning of the business, he had taken the 1 st floor of the building also by virtue of Ext.A3. Further the petitioner/respondent herein contended that the building in which she is residing at present is very old and has become decrepit. According to her, the present building is not sufficiently strong and spacious and is unfit to reside. She is in need of the petition schedule building for the residence of herself and her family. Besides the counter petitioner has kept the rent in arrear for the last six months.

(3.) The counter petitioner resisted the petition and contended that the bonafide need projected in the petition is only a ruse for eviction and the building in which the petitioner/respondent herein has been residing is suitable and convenient for residence. It is also contended that since she is in possession of another building, the petitioner/respondent herein is not entitled to get the benefit under the first proviso to section 11 (3) of the Act. According to the counter petitioner, the income from the business in the petition schedule building is the main source of income for his livelihood and that suitable building are not available in the locality to shift his business from the petition schedule building. Hence the counter petitioner prayed for dismissal of the petition.