LAWS(KER)-2017-3-138

MEETHALE PARAMBATH CHANDRAN Vs. C T MUHAMMED

Decided On March 03, 2017
Meethale Parambath Chandran Appellant
V/S
C T Muhammed Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein/ respondent is the tenant who suffered the concurrent verdict of the courts below granting the order of eviction under section 11(3) and 11 (4)(ii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) to the respondent herein/petitioner/Landlord.

(2.) According to the respondent herein/petitioner, he bona fide needs the petition schedule shop room for starting a stationery and fancy store for his son by name Noufal. The said Noufal is an unmarried, unemployed youth seeking any kind of avocation for his livelihood. He is not in possession of any other vacant rooms of his own so as to start the aforesaid business. The income derived from the business in the petition schedule room is not the main source of income of the revision petitioner/respondent. The revision petitioner/respondent has acquired a building at Bangalore. He shifted his business to Bangalore and thereafter he sublet the petition schedule shop room to a third party and now the sub lessee is conducting an optical shop in the petition schedule shop room. Further, it is averred that the revision petitioner/respondent has constructed a new platform inside the room, divided the room into two by fixing iron beams and pillars and thereby caused damage to the walls and structures and the said alteration reduced the value and utility of the building materially and permanently, in violation of the terms of entrustment.

(3.) The revision petitioner/respondent denied the bona fide need put forward by the respondent/petitioner and according to the revision petitioner/respondent, the need projected is a ruse for eviction only. The respondent/petitioner himself enhanced the rent and demanded Rs.2,000/- per month as rent but the revision petitioner/respondent refused to pay rent at the said enhanced rate. According to revision petitioner/respondent, the son of the respondent/petitioner is not a dependent of the respondent/petitioner.