LAWS(KER)-2018-8-145

T V SUHARABI Vs. K SELVARAJ

Decided On August 07, 2018
T V Suharabi Appellant
V/S
K SELVARAJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these revisions are filed, challenging a common judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the parties are common, these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Revision petitioners are common landlords in the Rent Control Revisions and respondents are different tenants, who are occupying different shop rooms owned by the revision petitioners. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petitions.

(2.) The petitioners filed the rent control petitions, seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to them, they bona fide need the petition schedule shop rooms for starting a supermarket for the 3rd petitioner. The respondents resisted all the Rent Control Petitions, contending that the need projected in the Rent Control petitions is not bona fide and they are entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. After considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court allowed all the rent control petitions. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred rent control appeals and the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed all the Rent Control Petitions, on a finding that the need projected is not bona fide. Thus, the legality and propriety of the divergent findings on bona fide need of the petitioners have come up in revision for consideration of this Court.

(3.) According to the petitioners, there are seven rooms, including petition schedule rooms and one staircase room in the ground floor of the building. They are in bona fide need of the six shop rooms situated in the ground floor of the building, for starting a mini supermarket for the 3rd petitioner. The 3rd petitioner has completed his studies; but he is not having any job or income. After the death of his father, the entire burden to maintain the 1st petitioner and other petitioners is upon the 3rd petitioner. They have no other buildings of their own to start the said mini supermarket and several other buildings are available in the locality to shift the business carried on in the petition schedule shop rooms. The respondents are not depending upon the income derived from the business in the respective tenanted premises.