POYIL MAMMAD Vs. K P PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the appellants in R.C.A.No.271/2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vadakara as well as the respondents/ tenants in R.C.P.No.2/2014 of the Rent Control Court, Vadakara. This revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below whereby an order of eviction has been passed against them under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act').

(2.) The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition. According to the petitioners, the petition schedule building owned by them was in occupation of the first respondent under the lease agreement and the rent from February, 2013 is in arrears. Though he had sent a notice requiring the payment of arrears of rent, the rent was not paid. Therefore, he is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The 4th petitioner in the R.C.P. bonafide needs the petition schedule building for conducting a car air-conditioning service centre. The landlords have no other buildings of their own to carry on the aforesaid business. The respondents are not depending upon the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building and several other vacant buildings are available in the locality. Thirdly, according to the petitioners, the first respondent has sub-leased the petition schedule building to the 3rd respondent and now the 3rd respondent is carrying on business in the petition schedule shop room. Though he had issued a notice to terminate the transfer of possession to the 3rd respondent, the respondents have not done so. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act also.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter statement denying all the allegations levelled against them in the Rent Control Petition. According to the respondents, they have paid the rent up to March, 2014 by depositing in court and at present, there is no arrears. The need projected in the petition is not bonafide and it is a ruse for eviction only. The petitioners are in possession of suitable other rooms for conducting the car air-conditioning service centre. So also, the 4th petitioner is carrying on the said trade with the name and style "Denbo AC", in one of the rooms in the ground floor of the building. They emphatically denied the sub-lease alleged against them. According to the respondents, after the lease, they entered into a Partnership Deed on 05.01.2010 along with Mr.Jabir Malal and Mr.A.K.Abdul Hameed Haji and now the partnership firm is conducting the business by name 'Fareeda Auto Shop' in the petition schedule building. Mr. Jabir is the managing partner of the firm. He is a physically handicapped person by birth. He has been advised to take complete rest. In that situation, a friend of Mr.Jabir, who is also having similar business in the nearby shop, is helping Mr. Jabir and the original tenants are carrying on the business under the partnership firm in the petition schedule shop room. According to them, they are not in possession of any other buildings as alleged in the petition and they are mainly depending upon the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule shop room. No other buildings are available in the locality to shift their business.