ABDUL ASEEA Vs. DEVAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RCR. 36/09 is filed by the landlord and RCR. 86/09 is filed by the tenant. Both the revision petitions are directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta. Since facts have been narrated correctly in the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also in the order of the Rent Control Court we propose to refer to them only very briefly. The parties are being referred to as landlord and tenant respectively.

(2.) The rent control petition was filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965, viz., the ground that the petition schedule building is required bona fide by the landlord for starting a hardware business for his dependent daughter Rahiya and son-in-law Muhammed. The landlord alleged that the tenant has got properties and buildings at Balussery, her home town and that she is having income from them. It was alleged that the tenant is having buildings having door Nos. 226 to 230 and 551 to 555 in Ward No. VII of Meenangadi Panchayath in addition to two other buildings standing in her name. The landlord alleged therefore, that if the tenant wants to shift her textile business she has her own building to shift to, and that the tenant is not entitled protection for the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965.

(3.) The tenant contended that the need put forward by the landlord is only a ruse for getting eviction and that the landlord's son-in-law is working in Gulf a country for many years and that he has landed properties and business' establishments at Koduvally his native town, and has no need for starting hardware business in the petition schedule building. It was alleged that the rent control petition was filed without bonafides in retaliation to the tenant not acceding to the landlord's request for enhancement of rent. The tenant denied the allegation regarding the availability of buildings with her and contended that the buildings made mention of by the landlord are in the possession of tenants and that on the basis of an oral partition, those buildings have been set apart to the share of the tenant's daughter.