PUTHIYA VEETTIL PRIYESH Vs. PADOLI BIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant, who is confronting with an order of eviction, passed concurrently, by the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Control Court, Payyannur. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. The respondents herein, who are the landlords filed RCP.No.65/2013 before the Rent Control Court, Payyannur seeking an order of eviction against the revision petitioner herein under Section 11(2), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). Subsequently, the respondents have abandoned the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) and the Rent Control Court considered the claim under Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(8) of the Act. The revision petitioner herein opposed the said application contending that there was no requirement for additional accommodation as the petitioners have sufficient space to conduct the present tiles business. So also, it was contended that the comparative hardship that may be caused to the respondent, if an order of eviction is passed against him could be greater than the advantage to the petitioners. After considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court rejected the claim for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and passed an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act on a finding that the requirement for additional accommodation claimed in the petition is bonafide and the petitioners have succeeded to prove the requirement for additional accommodation and the comparative hardship that may be caused to the respondent will not be greater than the advantages to the landlords. Though the respondents have preferred RCA.No.20/2016 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, the Appellate Authority after re-appreciating the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the concurrent findings of the courts below granting an order of eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act have come up in revision before us.

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

(3.) The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the petitioners have not specifically pleaded the requirement for additional accommodation and the courts below have failed to appreciate the requirement for additional accommodation in its correct perspective. We have meticulously gone through the concurrent findings of the courts below whereby an order of eviction has been passed under Section 11(8) of the Act. The landlord-tenant relationship is admitted. Going by the pleadings of the petitioners, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners have purchased the building having four rooms for doing tiles business. The first petitioner along with the husband of the 2 nd petitioner is carrying on tiles business in three rooms of the said building. The respondent is in occupation of the remaining one room and the said room was leased out to him for conducting spare parts business. Thus, all the four rooms of the building are facing to the National Highway. According to the petitioners, they are suffering from lack of space to display the different types of tiles. So, the remaining one room, which is in occupation of the respondent is also required for the conduct of the tiles business, which is being carried on in the other three rooms of the building. Without the petition schedule shop rooms, the petitioners cannot conduct the business conveniently. Thus, additional accommodation is required for the tiles business of the petitioners in the three rooms. The respondent contended that there is no requirement for additional accommodation to conduct the business of the petitioners. The allegation that the petitioners are conducting tiles business is not fully correct and they are doing the trade of sanitary items and water tanks, besides the tiles. They admitted that the building consists of four rooms which are facing to National Highway and the petitioners are occupying three rooms for their business and the respondent is in occupation of the remaining one room, which is scheduled in the rent control petition. According to him, the requirement for additional accommodation is not bonafide and the petitioners can conduct their tiles business conveniently without getting the petition schedule shop rooms. In short, according to him, in the ground floor, the petitioners are carrying on business comfortably and the materials are exhibited conveniently so as to attract the customers. Thus, the petition schedule shop room is not required for the business of the petitioners. Further, he claimed that the hardship that may be caused to him, if an order of eviction is passed against him, would outweigh the advantages to the petitioners.