P. SUKUMARAN Vs. C. SHEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the judgment dtd. 31/7/2015 in R.C.A. No. 14/2015 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge-I, Kozhikode, which was passed against the order dtd. 29/11/2014 in R.C.P. No. 105/2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II, Kozhikode. The petitioner in a petition under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), who was the respondent before the Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent before the Rent Control Court, who was the appellant before the Appellate Authority is the present respondent. The revision petitioner filed the Rent Control Petition contending that the petition schedule room was let out to the respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.4,000.00 for conducting as STD booth, Fax, Internet, Lamination, Photostat and a tea stall. The rent from April, 2010 is in arrears. It was also contended that the respondent has sublet the tea shop to another person. It was further contended that his daughter Rachana bona fidely requires the petition schedule room for starting a hosiery business and for that purpose, she is depending on the petitioner. The respondent is not depending on the petition schedule room for her livelihood and there are other vacant rooms available in the locality.

(2.) Per contra, the respondent filed a counter statement denying the averments in the petition. It was contended that rent up to June, 2010 has been given to the petitioner and there is no sub lease. The need alleged is not bona fide in so far as the daughter of the petitioner is residing at her matrimonial house at Vatakara. The income she gets from the petition schedule room is her main source of livelihood and that there are no suitable rooms available in the locality. The petitioner and his daughter were examined as PW1 and PW2. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. A witness was examined on the side of the respondent and Exts.B1 to B17 were marked on the side of the respondent. Exts.C1 and C1(a) were marked as court exhibits. The learned Rent Control Court by its order dtd. 28/1/2012 rejected the Rent Control Petition. Pursuant to the judgment in R.C.A. No. 92/2012, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Rent Control Court by its order dtd. 29/11/2014 allowed the Rent Control Petition under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The claim for eviction under Sec. 11(4)(i) of the Act was rejected. Highly aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Court, the respondent filed R.C.A. No. 14/2015. The learned Appellate Authority, by its judgment dtd. 31/7/2015, allowed the Appeal by vacating the order passed under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. The order of eviction under Sec. 11(2) was confirmed. Highly aggrieved by the order of the learned Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed this revision before this Court.

(3.) The Appellate Authority did not understand the case of the revision petitioner in its proper perspective and erred in holding that the respondent is entitled for the protection of the first proviso under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority ought not to have given the benefit of the first proviso under Sec. 11(3) of the Act to the respondent in the absence of a pleading seeking protection of the first proviso. The Appellate Authority ought not to have rejected the claim of the respondent in view of the categoric admission of RW1 that there are no vacant rooms available with the petitioner as on the date of the filing of the Rent Control Petition.