HERCULES AUTOMOBILES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD. Vs. LEELA DHARMARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant who is confronting with an order of eviction passed against him under Sections 11 (2) (b), 11 (3) and 11 (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ('the Act' for short) in RCP No.45/2006 which stands confirmed in RCA 10/2009 filed by him. According to the petitioner, the petition schedule building was leased out to the first respondent under Ext A1 rent deed. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement the first respondent is not entitled to sub-let or transfer the rooms or any portion of the building to anybody and that the violation of this term shall render cancellation of the agreement. But, in violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy the first respondent has sub-leased and transferred exclusive possession of the petition schedule building to a company by name and style as 'M/s Hercules Automobiles International Private Limited' for valuable consideration and the said company is now in unauthorized occupation of the premises. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (i) of the Act.

(2.) Secondly, it is averred that the petitioner bona fide needs the petition schedule building leased out to the first respondent for starting a textile shop room. According to her, she has got sufficient financial capacity for starting the said business and she requires space for show rooms, storing textiles, providing office space etc. It is further stated that she has no other buildings of her own in her possession for starting the said business. But several other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift the business of the first respondent from the tenanted premises.

(3.) Thirdly, it is averred that the first respondent had willfully defaulted the payment of rent to the petitioner and the rent is in arrears from 31.10.2005. The arrears of rent as on 31.8.2006 would come to Rs. 92,580/-. Though she had issued a notice dated 18.9.2006 through her lawyer to the first respondent demanding vacant possession of the scheduled building and arrears of rent, she neither cared to pay rent arrears nor vacate the premises. Thus, the petitioner has sought for an order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (i), 11 (3) and 11 (2) (b) of the Act.