KRISHNAKUMAR A V Vs. HAMZA MUSALIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these revision petitions are filed challenging a common judgment, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, all the revision petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly.

(2.) The revision petitioners herein are the tenants in occupation of different rooms owned and possessed by the respondent/ landlord herein and the rooms were leased out to the revision petitioners, under the respective lease deeds. (The parties are referred to as tenants and landlords). According to the landlord, he bona fide needs the petition schedule rooms for starting a footwear shop for his brother's son Sri.Musthafa, who is a dependent on him. The said Musthafa, who was doing business abroad is now planning to settle down at his native place, as his business abroad is not profitable. The landlord has agreed to supervise the proposed business to be started by Musthafa in the petition schedule shop rooms. Neither the landlord nor the said Musthafa has any other buildings of their own in the same town, by name, Padinjare Angadi. The tenants are not mainly depending upon the income from the business carried on in the respective shop rooms and several other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift their respective business from the petition schedule shop rooms.

(3.) The tenants in all the Rent Control Petitions resisted the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act) mainly contending that the said Musthafa is not a member of the landlord's family and is not dependent on him. According to them, Musthafa and landlord are living separately and independently for many years. The dependency must be pleaded and proved in evidence; but in the instant case, there is no pleadings, disclosing the dependency of the said Musthafa on the landlord. The alleged dependent is an affluent person and he has his own buildings and landed property in the same town. So, there is no need for him to depend upon the landlord for the petition schedule building. There is no scope for the proposed business at Padinjare Angadi, as there are so many other footwear shops at Padinjare Angadi. So also, the building is having more than 30 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. So, the petition schedule shop rooms are not suitable for footwear business. The income derived from the business carried on in the shop rooms is the only source of their livelihood and no other buildings are available in the locality.