KOTTAKKUNNUMMAL ASSAINAR Vs. MUYYOTH KADEESA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the appellants in RCA 162/2015 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vadakara as well as the respondents in RCP 8/2014 of the Rent Control Court, Payyoli. This revision petition has been filed, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, granting an order of eviction under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Act). The landlordtenant relationship is not disputed. The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the respondents paid the rent only upto November, 2003. A notice dated 30.4.2007 was issued claiming arrears of rent. Then, they paid the rent for the month of March and April, 2007 by money order. Thus, rent from December, 2003 to February, 2007 and from May, 2007 to February, 2014 fell in arrears. It was not paid in spite of the receipt of notice dated 20.11.2013. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to get an order of eviction under section 11(2) (b) of the Act. It is further contended that the 4th petitioner bona fide needs the petition schedule shop rooms for starting a chicken stall. He has previous experience in the said business. Earlier, he had issued a notice on 30.4.2007, directing the tenants to vacate the petition schedule shop rooms. Thereafter, he met with an accident and sustained fracture on his legs and he was laid up for three years. Later, due to financial stringency, he was constrained to go abroad in search of a job. Now he has cancelled his visa and returned to India. He has no job or any source of income. In the above circumstances, the petition schedule shop room is required for starting a business to eke out his livelihood.

(3.) The respondents denied the claim under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3). According to them, the total amount of arrears of rent stated in the petition is not correct. The rent by way of money order was returned by the landlords. There is no bona fides in the need and the need projected is a ruse for eviction. The fourth petitioner is employed abroad even now. That apart, he has got properties which would generate income. He is the partner of the business conducted by his brother, the 7th petitioner in the same building. Wheareas he is dependent upon the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule shop room and no other suitable buildings are available in the locality for shifting his business.