LEVAKUMAR Vs. K V MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the appellant in RCA No. 40/2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam (Additional District Court VIII), as well as the respondent/tenant in RCP No. 73/2015 of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) The above RCP was filed by the Respondents herein against the Revision petitioner, under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, (for short, the Act), seeking an order of eviction. The revision petitioner herein resisted the aforesaid claim for eviction, contending that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent and the need projected in the petition is not bonafide and no amount was due from him to the Respondent as arrears of rent. After considering the evidence of record, the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Though the revision petitioner had filed the aforesaid appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the concurrent findings of the court below granting an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, to the Respondent are assailed in this revision petition.

(3.) The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. According to the petitioner, he is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of the petition schedule building. The petitioner's father Sri.K.M. Varappan let out the schedule building to the respondent's father Sri. Sukumara Panicker and he was conducting a battery business by name "Indian Batteries and Electronics" in the schedule building. Now, the said Sukumara Panicker is no more and the petition schedule building is in occupation of the respondent and he has been conducting his father's business as such by name "Indian Batteries and Electronics" in the schedule building. The petitioner's son is running a dental clinic on the first floor of the schedule building by name "Kattookaran Dental Clinic". The petitioner is in bonafide need of the building, for shifting the aforesaid dental clinic of his son, from the first floor to the ground floor. Now, aged patients are facing difficulty to reach the first floor of the building. It becomes extremely difficult for the surgical patients to ascend and descend the stair case after surgical procedure. The petitioner or his son has no other building of their own to shift the dental clinic. The petitioner's son is a dependent on him, for the petition schedule building. The respondent is not mainly depending upon the income from the petition schedule building. Several other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift the business from the petition schedule building. So also, the respondent have defaulted rent from February 2014 onwards. Even though, notice was sent to the respondent on 07.01.2015, demanding to pay the arrears of rent, no amount was paid towards arrears of rent demanded in the notice. With the aforesaid averments, the petitioner prayed for an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.