HANEEFA Vs. PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below granting an order of eviction under Sec.11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to the respondent herein (The parties are referred to as in Rent Control Petition). According to the petitioner, the petition schedule shop room belongs to her along with her mother and sister and she has preferred Rent Control Petition with the knowledge and consent of the other co-owners. She bona fide requires the petition schedule shop room for starting a business in Churidar materials and ready made items, exclusively for ladies. Further, it is averred that all the three children of the petitioner have grown up and settled in different places. Now she is free and sitting idle. She has no sufficient income of her own. In the said circumstances she wants to seek an avocation for earning income for her own and to spend time. Her husband was also working abroad and now he returned. He also offered his assistance and help to conduct the said business. They have no other buildings of their own in their possession to start the said business. But several other vacant rooms are available in the locality to shift the business of the respondent from the tenanted premises.

(2.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction contending that there is no bona fide in the need projected in the petition and it is a pretext for eviction only. Earlier, the landlords filed RCP No.101/2006 under Sec.11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) on the ground that the petition schedule shop room is required for the occupation of the respective husbands of the petitioners 2 and 3 therein and they want to conduct a stationery business in the petition schedule shop room. Thereafter, all the landlords again filed RCP No.52/2009 under Sec.11 (2) (b) on the ground that they bona fide need the petition schedule shop room for conducting stationery, grocery, STD booth and photostat business. In that RCP also they contended that they intended to start the said business for eking out their livelihood. However, the Rent Control Court rejected both Rent Control Petitions and subsequently got confirmed by the order passed in revisions filed before this Court. Further, they contended that there is no need to start such a business as the petitioner is aged and well- settled. She has other sources of income and her children are well-settled. Further, they claimed protection under the second proviso to Sec.11 (3) of the Act. According to him, he is depending on the income from the tenanted premises and no other alternative vacant buildings are available in the locality.

(3.) On the aforesaid contentions both parties adduced evidence and on appreciation of evidence the courts below concurrently found that the need projected in the petition is bona fide and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Sec.11 (3) of the Act.