LAWS(KER)-2018-3-576

A.L. VIJAYAN Vs. PHILIP VARKEY

Decided On March 09, 2018
A.L. Vijayan Appellant
V/S
Philip Varkey Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent findings on a Rent Control Petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity 'the Act' only) is under challenge in the captioned revision petition.

(2.) The revision petitioner/the tenant is in occupation of a shop room No.632 of Ward No.24 of Thiruvalla Municipality owned by the respondent. The respondent herein/the landlord filed R.C.P.No.6/2012 projecting the bona fide need of own occupation. It is stated therein that the sole source of income to maintain himself and his wife is the pension of his wife and therefore, for raising fund, it is necessary to start some business. It is in the said circumstances that proposing to conduct a business for starting photostat, fax, mobile card business, that he sought eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule shop room. Evidently, the revision petitioner herein resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fide in the requirement and it is nothing, but a ruse to evict him from the petition schedule shop room. It is also stated therein that two sons of the landlord are employed abroad and his wife is a retired teacher and therefore, is financially sound. Before the Rent Control Court, the respondent/landlord was examined as PW1 and his wife was examined as PW2. On his side, Exts.A1 to A5 and A5(a) were got marked. On the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, DW1 to DW4 were examined. Ext.B1 was also got marked on his side. Ext.C1 is a copy of the commission report filed in O.S.No.139/2012, which was a suit, which the revision petitioner instituted against the respondent/landlord. It is the evaluation of the evidence on record and the arguments advanced that culminated in the order of eviction in R.C.P.No.6/2012. The revision petitioner took up the matter in appeal as R.C.A.No.7/2015. The arguments advanced to assail the order passed by the Rent Control Court were repelled by the appellate authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court. Hence this Rent Control Revision.

(3.) On 30.1.2018, when the matter came up for consideration, we have issued notice on admission by speed post to the respondent and passed an interim order. Consequently, Sri. Arun Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent entered appearance. Heard both sides.