AYISHA Vs. AYISHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed concurrently by the courts below. The respondent filed RCP No. 254 of 2012 under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act ('the Act' for short) seeking an order of eviction. The revision petitioner resisted the claim for eviction. Both parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. After considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(3) of the Act and passed an order of eviction. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner had preferred R.C.A. No. 53 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. The concurrent findings of the courts below whereby an order of eviction has been passed against revision petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act are assailed in this revision petition.

(2.) The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. According to the petitioner, to expand the business of her son, she is in bona fide need of the petition schedule building, which is in occupation of the respondent. The petitioner's son Noushad is conducting a business of stationary, books, dry food and packed bakery items in the building situated in the eastern side of the petition schedule building. The said building is very small and is insufficient to do his business and therefore, he is unable to stock the goods required for the business. To expand his business more comfortably and profitably, the petitioner's son requires the petition schedule building. Neither the petitioner nor his son has any other vacant building in their possession to expand the existing business and therefore, the petitioner bona fide requires the petition schedule building to accommodate her son's business.

(3.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction contending that the need projected in the petition is only a ruse for eviction. But, the respondent admitted the landlord-tenant relationship. The building in which the petitioner's son is conducting a grocery shop is not a small one as claimed by the petitioner. They denied the averment in the petition that the petitioner's son is unable to stock the goods to do his business profitably. It is not true that the petitioner's son is depending upon the petitioner for building and that he has no building of his own. The respondent is seriously conducting his business in the petition schedule building under the name and style of 'Taj Restaurant' and the petition schedule building is highly necessary to conduct her business. She has no other source of income and no other suitable vacant building is available in the locality to shift the business from the tenanted premises. Therefore, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the Rent Control Petition.