GEORGE Vs. K B ADDUL RAHIMANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent / landlord sought eviction under S.11(3), 11(4)(iii), 11(4)(v) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed eviction under S.11(4)(iii) and 11(8) of the Act. In appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Authority upheld the order.

(2.) The short facts leading to the dispute are the following: The petition schedule building is a room in the first floor of a large building situated on the western side of Broadway in Ernakulam. The landlord is conducting business in the name and style 'Bavas' as a partnership along with his son in the ground floor of the building. They are dealing in ready made garments. The upper floor of the said room is the petition schedule room numbered as 40/2845 of Cochin Corporation. The tenant is the owner of shop No. 40/2840 in the ground floor which is next adjacent to the room on the north of the landlord's room, wherein he is doing business in ready made dresses in the name and style 'Boney Dresses'. He is using the tenanted premises as a godown and office. The rental arrangement started in the year 1991 and the monthly rent is Rs.500/-. According to the averments in the Rent Control Petition, the tenant is liable to be evicted on various grounds like cessation of occupation without reasonable cause (S.11(4)(v) of the Act), additional accommodation required for the landlord (S.11(8) of the Act) in view of the fact that the business of the landlord is expanding day by day and the space available in his shop is insufficient. It was further contended that the respondent has got three other buildings, first one being building No. 40/2849 in Penta Menaka building complex which is about 15 feet away from the petition schedule building, another building in D. D. Vasthra Mahal in Post Office Link Road, Ernakulam at a distance of about 150 meters away from the schedule building and third one in M. G. Road, Ernakulam and hence the ground under S.11(4)(iii) is also attracted.

(3.) Before the Rent Control Court, on the side of the landlord the oral testimony consists of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. Exts. C1 and C2 are the reports of the Advocate Commissioner. PW 2 is the Advocate Commissioner who filed Exts. C1 and C2 reports. The tenant was examined as RW 1.