PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. ZAKEER HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the appellant in BRC Appeal No. 18/2015 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam as well as the respondent in R.C.(OP) No. 10/2012 of the Principal Rent Control Court, Kollam. The aforesaid R.C.(OP) was filed by the respondents herein against the revision petitioner, under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short, the Act). The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition.

(2.) First petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. According to the petitioners, the petition schedule shop room belongs to the first petitioner and the same was let out to the respondent for conducting a footwear business and the said shop room is now being occupied by the respondent. The respondent paid rent up to July, 2011 only and thereafter, the rent fell in arrears, Though the petitioners issued a lawyers notice, the respondent has not paid the rent in arrears. Therefore, they are entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(2) (b). Further, it is contended that now the income from the fruit stall which is being conducted by the first petitioner, which stands adjacent to the petition schedule building is not sufficient to meet the educational expenses of their children. So the petitioners intended to start a super market in the petition schedule building and two other shop rooms, which belongs to the second petitioner. The rooms on the upstairs buildings are not suitable for such a super market. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid rent control petition, seeking an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) and the first petitioner has filed another rent control petition as RC(OP) No. 8/2012 under Section 11(3), seeking an order of eviction against the tenant who is occupying the room situated adjacent to the petition schedule building.

(3.) The respondents resisted the claim for eviction under Section 11 (3) contending that the need projected in the petition is not a bona fide one and they denied the allegation that the rent fell in arrears from July, 2011 onwards. It is also contended that the respondent is depending upon the income derived from the business and no other buildings are available in the locality to shift the business from the petition schedule building.