G. SADAVISAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.C.V. GOPALAN NAIR, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, PONAKAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT Vs. A. RAJENDRAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHAN PILLAI, PRANAVAM, HOUSE NO. 338, WARD NO. 19, PONAKAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.P. No. 1/2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Mavelikkara. The respondents/land lords had filed the Rent Control Petition for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises under Sec. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The case of the respondents is that the building bearing No. MMC 14/243 (old number 19/156) is under their joint ownership and possession. The same was rented out to the revision petitioner excluding the two rooms on the southern side of the aforesaid building for a period of 11 months in the year 2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.1000.00. Thereafter the lease period was extended for 11 months on executing fresh rent deeds. But the petitioner kept the rent in arrears from May 2012. The petitioner is the brother of the second respondent. Now the first respondent who was in Gulf had returned and he requested the building to start a diary farm for his livelihood. Despite notice demanding eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for starting the diary farm for the respondents, the petitioner did not vacate and hence the eviction petition was filed. The petitioner had contended that the need urged by the respondents are absolutely false and it was only a ruse for eviction. It was further contended that there was no landlord tenant relationship pertaining to the building as alleged and actually he is a co-owner of the building and the respondents had forged documents and filed the petition raising untenable contentions. Actually, on 23.5.2013 he got reliable information that the respondents 1 and 2 influenced his father and fraudulently created the document in their favor. In fact no rent deeds had been executed as alleged. The further contention raised was that the second respondent had actually received an amount of Rs.10,50,000.00 for her personal requirements but failed to return the same and when the amount was demanded, this false case had been cooked up by the respondents . With all these contentions he resisted the rent control petition for eviction. The Rent Controller after meticulous evaluation of the evidence adduced ordered eviction under Sec. 11 (2) (b) as well under Sec. 11(3). The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.3/2015. The order of the appellate authority is assailed in this revision petition contending that the order is illegal, irregular and improper.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Under Sec. 20 of the Act the power of the revisional court is very limited and only if the order is illegal,irregular or improper the revisional court has power to interfere.