GOVINDAN Vs. RASHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords are the revision petitioners. They sought for eviction of the respondent-tenant who is conducting business in time keepers of various types by name Time' n 'tune' in the schedule building which is situated at a spot which can easily be described as the heart area of Cochin City from the ponit of trade i. e the junction where the Mahatma Gandhi Road meets the Rajaji Road. The ground for eviction invoked were S. 11 (2) (b) arrears of rent and S. 11 (3) bona fide need forown occupation. The R. C. P. was instituted by the revision petitioners relying on a lease deed executed by the respondent in favour of one Narayanan the previous owner and the brother of the first revision petitioner on 28. 7. 1989. It was averred that consequent on partition of the common properties amongst the above said narayanan, the first petitioner and others, the ownership of the sche dute building became allotted towards the share of the first revision petitioner and that the respondent-tenant attorned to the revision petitioners and was paying the rent directly to, them.

(2.) THE respondent filed detailed statements of objections to the Rent Gontrol petition. He contended that at the time of construction of the building, he paid a sum of Rs. 3, lakhs to Shri Narayanan. He also contended that a further amount of rs. 1 lakh was paid to Shri Narayanan, who agreed to adjust the amount towards the rent payable. He further contended that for making substantial alterations in the building for the purpose of business, such as changing of the red oxide flooring to marble and granite flooring, he expended a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with the consent of shri Narayanan. According to him, all these payments and investments were made by him in view of an agreement by Narayanan that he will either beallowed to purchase the building, in which case the amounts paid and expended by him will be adjusted , towards the purchase price and if purchase does not materialise, he will be allowed to hold the building as a permanent tenant on condition that every three years, the original contract rent of Rs. 900/- will stand increased by 5%. Significantly, existence of the lease deed of 28. 07. 1989 specifically relied on in the Rent Control Petition was not disputed by the respondent. On the contrary, while conceding the existence of that lease deed and conceding that at least as regards the rent liability, that lease deed has been acted upon, it was contended that the above lease deed was got executed only for the purpose of income-tax. After filing objections, J. 14. No. 1644/02 was filed by the respondent, seeking an order that the claim of permanent tenancy raised by him against the R. C. P. be considered as a preliminary issue. To that I. A. , the revision petitioners filed objections denying the claim of the respondent and contending that the case does not involve any claim of permanent tenancy. The Rent control Court enquired into the I. A. and evidence at the enquiry consisted of Exts. A1 to A1 (d) receipts and the testimony of the tenant/petitioner as PW 1 on the side of the tenant. On the side of the respondents/landlords, the same consisted of documents Exts. B1 to B3 and counter oral evidence of the first revision petitioner as rw 1 , apart from Ext. C1 Commission report. That Court evaluated the evidence and would come to the conclusion that the claim of permanent tenancy has been raised without any bona fide and with the objective of protracting the proceedings for eviction.

(3.) THE respondent preferred appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court as R. C. A. No. 191/2002 and the Appellate Authority would in reversal of the finding of the Rent Control Court find that the respondent's claim of permanent tenancy is a bona fide one. It is impugning the above order of the Appellate Authority that the present R. C. revision has been filed by the landlords invoking the jurisdiction under s. 20 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) (Act 2 of 1965 ). We have heard the submissions of Mr. T. K. Venugopalan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Shriak. Sheshadri, learned counsel for the respondent. We have perused the entire records, in view of the divergent findings entered by the authorities below.