VANNATHAN VALAPPIL PREETHA Vs. KALLAYATHU VALAPPIL CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.1/2013 which had arisen from RCP No.5/2005 decided by the Rent Controller, Taliparamba.

(2.) The revision petitioner was a tenant who suffered an order of eviction. Respondent herein filed RCP No.5/2005 seeking eviction of the petition schedule building on the ground of bonafide need under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petition schedule building was leased to the tenant as per rent deed dated 25/2/1999 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- which was later enhanced to Rs. 600/-. It is stated that the petitioner's brother's son one Latheesh Kumar required a building to start an electronic repair work. Latheesh Kumar is depending on the petitioner. The petition schedule shop room is in the upstairs of the building. In the ground floor, petitioner is conducting an STD booth and stationary business. It is also contended that the business being conducted by the tenant is not her own business which she is conducting for her livelihood and there are various other buildings in the locality to shift her business.

(3.) Tenant filed objection inter alia contending that the bonafide need projected by the landlord is only a ruse for evicting her from the premises. Petitioner examined PW1 and PW2 and relied upon Exts.A1 to A13. Respondent tenant placed reliance upon the evidence of RW1 and RW2 and Exts.B1 to B9. Initially, the Court below dismissed the Rent Control Petition. The order was challenged by the landlord by filing RCA No. 52/2007. By judgment dated 28/6/2011, this Court set aside the order passed by the Court below and on a finding that the need projected by the landlord was bonafide and genuine, case was thereafter remitted back to the Court below to enquire into the operation of first and second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. After remand, the landlord and tenant were again examined as PW1 and RW1 and Ext.A14 was marked. The land lord also produced Ext.A15 series. The Rent Controller found that the tenant is not entitled to protection of either of the provisos to Section 11(3) and accordingly ordered eviction.