CHAMI Vs. KALLIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords of the building sought to be evicted as per RCP 64 of 1989 filed under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vadakara. Both the authorities below have ordered eviction finding that the need alleged by the respondents is bona fide. The orders passed by the authorities below are under challenge in this revision.

(2.) The case of the respondents is that the petition schedule building belong to them in coownership right. The building is a residential house and they need the same bona fide for occupation of the third respondent and his family as they find it difficult to live in the family house where there are several members living together. Opposing the relief prayed for in the RCP, petitioner has taken up the contention that the building in which the respondents including the third respondent and his family are living is a palatial one more than sufficient to accommodate all the members of the family. There is no bona fides in the need alleged and it is only a ruse to get eviction. While denying the bona fides of the need alleged, it was contended that the petition has been filed only as an attempt to get the rent of the building increased. He is residing in the building in question with his family for the last 21/2 decades. He has effected repairs to the building spending huge amounts with the consent of the 11th respondent. We may relevantly note here itself that the petitioner has not specifically claimed the protection of the provisions contained in the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act in the counter affidavit filed in the RCP.

(3.) In order to establish the bona fide need alleged by the respondents, the third respondent, for whose occupation the building was sought to be evicted, was examined as PW.l. Apart from examining PW 1 in support of the case pleaded in the RCP, respondents have taken out a commission to inspect the family house called 'Edathil House' where all the respondents barring a few are living together and to submit a report regarding the space for accommodation, conveniences available in the said house and the inconveniences resulting from the joint residence of the respondents in the said house. The Commissioner appointed in the case has submitted a report and two plans indicating the lie of the rooms in the ground floor and first floor of the family house and the details of the household articles and other things noted by the commissioner in the various rooms at the time of his inspection. They have been marked as Exts. C1 to C3 by the Rent Control Court. On behalf of the petitioner, he has given evidence as RW. 1. No document was produced on his side.