C P ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. K JAMES GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant, who is confronting with an order of eviction passed concurrently by the courts below under section 1(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Act). The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer in PWD, he retired from service and he bona fide requires the petition schedule building for setting up an office for engineering consultancy service. He has already started taking private contracts for preparation of plans, estimates and consultancy in engineering work etc. Thus, the need for starting an office in the petition schedule building is bona fide. Further, it is averred that he has no other vacant buildings of his own in his possession to start the proposed office. The respondent is not depending upon the income from the business carried on in the tenanted premises and he has so many other vacant buildings of his own. So also several other vacant buildings are available in the locality, to shift the business from the petition schedule building. That apart, he failed to pay any rent from February, 2014. Though the petitioners had issued notice, demanding arrear of rent, the respondent failed to pay the arrears, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. On the aforesaid pleadings, the petitioners sought for an order of eviction, under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction, under section 11(2)(b) and 11(3). He denied the allegation that the rent was in arrear since the month of February, 2014 at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per month. Further, it is contended that the need projected in the petition is without bona fides and it is a ruse for eviction only. According to the respondent, the petitioners have several other buildings of their own, to set up the proposed office. They have already constructed a multistoried building, wherein suitable rooms are available for setting up their office. Similarly, the first petitioner along with other co-owners had already obtained vacant possession of another shop room in the same building in execution of an order of eviction passed in an earlier RCR 58/2007. But, they had already rented out the said shop room to another tenant. With the aforesaid contention, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the rent control petition.