GOVINDAN KANHIRANKALATH Vs. DONSY RAJEEVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in R.C.P.No.55/2013 of the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram as well as the appellant in R.C.A.No.155/2014 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara. He is a tenant under the respondents landlords. The respondents filed the said Rent Control Petition seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short), on the ground that they bonafide need the petition schedule building for starting a Beauty Parlour-cum-Fancy Centre and Ready-made shop. The revision petitioner herein objected the said application contending that the need projected in the application is not bonafide. The Rent Control Court, after considering the rival pleas and the evidence on record, passed an order of eviction against the revision petitioner herein under Section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order though the revision petitioner has filed the aforesaid Rent Control Appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority also, after re-appreciating the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the legality and correctness of the concurrent findings of the court below whereby an order of eviction has been granted under Section 11(3) of the Act are assailed in this revision petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The scope and extent of consideration under Section 20 of the Act are confined to legality and propriety of the findings of the courts below only and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence on factual findings, unless the said findings are found perverse. Coming to the concurrent findings of the court below, it is the case of the respondents that they have purchased the plaint schedule building by virtue of Ext.A2 sale deed and they bonafide need the petition schedule building for starting Beauty Parlour-cum-Fancy Centre and Ready-made shop. They claimed that they have basic knowledge and acquaintance with the said business. The first respondent has passed the Beautician course and she is holding a certificate for the same. The second respondent has studied upto Pre-degree. The petition schedule building is located in an ideal place suitable for housing such a business and they have financial capacity to start the said business. They have no other place of their own to start the said business. Even though their husbands are having buildings in the same locality, no buildings are suitable for the said business as no rooms are facing towards the road. The revision petitioner is not depending upon the income from the scheduled business and several other vacant rooms are available in the locality. On the aforesaid premises, they sought for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The revision petitioner resisted the said application contending that the need projected in the petition is not bonafide and it is only a ruse for eviction. The sale deed in favour of the respondents was executed with a malafide intention to evict the revision petitioner from the petition schedule building. The revision petitioner is depending on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule building and no other suitable vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift his business from the petition schedule building. On the aforesaid rival pleas, both the parties went to trial and adduced evidence. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and RW1 and the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B6 series and Court Exhibits-X1 to X8.

(3.) Though this revision petition has been filed on various grounds, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly point out that the courts below concurrently failed to appreciate the malafide intention of the respondents to evict the revision petitioner from the petition schedule building. Ext.A2 sale deed was executed collusively by the earlier landlord, who is none other than the mother-in-law of the respondents. Earlier, the mother-in-law had filed R.C.P.No.41/93 against the revision petitioner herein and his brother and that RCP was settled and lease was changed to the name of the revision petitioner. Subsequently, the mother-in-law had filed R.C.P.No.79/2005 against one Mr. Madhu for eviction of an adjacent room and obtained an order of eviction. Subsequently, the same room was entrusted to Madhu. The evidence of PW1 would disclose that the above said room was evicted for starting a business of her husband. But, subsequently, the said room was given to the said Madhu and her husband has not started any business as alleged in the said earlier Rent Control Petition. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in view of the previous litigations between the mother-in-law and the revision petitioner and his brother and one Mr. Madhu on the ground of bonafide needs, it could be presumed that the present petition for an order of eviction for the bonafide need of the daughter-in-laws is also a ruse for eviction only. The courts below have not considered the aforesaid previous litigations in the backdrop of the present petition.