P.T.MATHEW Vs. G.JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings granting order of eviction under section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act") have come up in this revision filed by the revision petitioner/tenant. (The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition.) According to the petitioner/landlord, he is occupying for his business, a part of the building, in which the tenant is carrying on his business and he is in bona fide need of additional accommodation for expansion of his existing business. The respondent/tenant is in occupation of item No.2 shop room which is situated at the westernmost portion of item No.1 building having three rooms and the petitioner was conducting a medical shop in the middle room. The eastern room was occupied by another tenant and thereafter he vacated that shop room and the petitioner joined the eastern room and the middle room together and thereafter he is conducting the medical shop in the said room, which is numbered as item No.3. Thus, now there are only two rooms in the ground floor of the building, that is, the western room, which is in the possession of the respondent and the eastern room which is in the possession of the petitioner. The total area of the shop room in his possession is less than 220 sq.ft. and the same is not sufficient for his business. The petition schedule item No.3 shop room, in which he has been conducting the medical shop, is not having sufficient area to accommodate the petitioner, his wife, staff members and trainee staff. Thus, it was due to the shortage of space, much inconvenience is experiencing for stacking and displaying the medicines. Further, to develop his business in a professional manner, more space is highly required. Even after repeated demands made by him the respondent is not amenable to surrender the vacant possession and in that circumstance he filed the Rent Control Petition seeking an order of eviction under section 11(8) of the Act.

(2.) The respondent resisted the requirement of additional accommodation pleaded in the petition contending that it is a pretext for eviction only. According to the respondent, even if the petitioner wants to stack more medicines, there is enough space available in the first and second floors of the petition schedule item No.1 building. An area having more than 2000 sq.ft. is available in the upstairs of the building. The intention of the petitioner is to evict the respondent from the petition schedule item No.2 room at any cost so as to rent out the said room to another tenant. Hence the respondent canvassed dismissal of the petition.

(3.) The landlord was examined as PW1 and his witnesses were examined as PW2 to PW9 and Exts.P1 to P35 were marked. The respondent was examined as DW1 and Exts.C1 to C2(a) were also marked as court exhibits. After analysing the aforesaid evidence on record the Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction on a finding that the requirement of additional accommodation is bona fide and the hardship that may be caused to the respondent, in case an order of eviction is granted to the petitioner, would not outweigh the advantages to the landlord. In appeal the Appellate Authority also confirmed the aforesaid finding as such without any interference.