M I SHAJAHAN Vs. ALICE @ ALICE GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the landlord who is confronting with an order dismissing the Rent Control Petition which was filed under section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act"). Though he had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court as such and dismissed the appeal. Thus, concurrent findings under section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) have come up in revision filed by the landlord. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the rent was in arrear from January 2011 onwards. Though, he had issued a statutory notice to the respondent, the arrears of rent was not paid within the stipulated time as required in the notice and thereby he is entitled to get an order of eviction under section 11(2)(b). Further it was averred that he is an NRI and he intends to start a mobile phone shop with accessories business in the petition schedule shop room as it is suitable for conducting the said business. So also it was contended that the respondent has been using the shop room in an unhealthy manner so as to diminish the value and utility of the entire building. The present business is a nuisance to the neighbouring shop owners also.

(3.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction under the above grounds contending that no amount was pending due to the petitioner as arrears of rent. Further it was contended that the respondent had paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as security for the agreement entered between the respondent and the father of the petitioner. There was an agreement for the sale of the petition schedule shop room. As regards the bona fide need, it was contended that the petitioner is working abroad and he has not lost his job abroad. Therefore the need projected is a ruse for eviction only. The respondent is entitled to get protection under the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act as she is mainly depending on the income from the tenanted premises and no other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift her business from the tenanted premises.