POOKODAN MUHAMMED RIYAS Vs. NAFEESA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenant. The landlord had filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises as RCP No. 13/2014 under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), before the Rent Control Court, Manjeri.

(2.) The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are summarised hereinbelow:

(3.) The respondent filed counter statement denying averments raised in the petition by the landlord in its entirety. It is contended specifically that he is a sub dealer of TVS autorikshaw, engaged in its sales and services in the petition schedule shop rooms. It was with the consent of the landlord that asbestos sheets have been placed on the roof for preventing rain water from entering into the petition schedule shop rooms. Actually the landlord has no intention to start furniture business in large scale as averred by him and the proposed need was raised only as a ruse for eviction. The children and nephew of the landlord are in no way dependents on him. Children are employed abroad. The landlord was getting a monthly income to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- by way of rent itself. The first floor of the building of which the tenanted premises formed a part, was available in the vacant possession of the landlord four months prior to the filing of the petition seeking eviction and those have been let out to tenants later on. The landlord attempted to cut off the amenities enjoyed by the tenants in the tenanted premises and thus attempted to forcibly evict them which occasioned the latter to file a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri as O.S. No.111/2013 and to obtain an order of temporary injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises. According to the tenant, these aspects would make it clear that the proposed need of the landlord is a bonafide one. Buildings are also available in the locality, whereto he can suitably shift the business. Both the tenant and his family members are depending mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition scheduled building, for their livelihood. With the contentions as above, the Rent Control Petition was resisted by the respondent.