KOOLERI PADINJARE VEETTIL NARAYANAN Vs. NALUPURAPPATTIL TAHIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the tenant challenges the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA 14/2002 dated February 7, 2009 setting aside the order of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Hosdurg in Rent Control Petition 50/1999 dated January 31, 2002 ordering eviction under S.11(3) of the Act and remanding the matter to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal in the light of the amendment of pleadings allowed in the original petition and in the counter statement of the tenant.

(2.) The landlady who is the revision respondent filed Rent Control Petition 50/1999 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Hosdurg claiming eviction of the petition schedule building under S.11(2) and 11(3) of the Act on the allegation that the tenant has kept the rent in arrears and that she bona fide needs the building for starting a hotel business for her husband who is a dependent on her. The tenant / revision petitioner resisted the claim for eviction on the ground that there are no arrears of rent and that the bona fide need put forward by the landlady is not genuine. Before the Rent Control Court the landlady was examined as PW 1 and her husband as PW 2 and she produced Exts. A1 to A6. On the side of the tenant, RW 1 was examined. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim for eviction under S.11(2), but ordered eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. Challenging the said order the tenant filed RCA 14/2002 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Court (Ad hoc) II, Kasaragod. Pending the appeal the husband of the landlady died. Therefore the landlady filed IA 1278/2008 before the Appellate Authority to amend the Rent Control Petition to the effect that notwithstanding the death of her husband, the need subsists and that at present she requires the petition schedule shop room to conduct hotel business. The tenant also filed IA 276/2008 before the Appellate Authority seeking amendment of his counter statement to raise an additional plea that on account of the death of the husband of the landlady, the claim for eviction made under S.11(3) of the Act no longer subsists. The Appellate Authority allowed both the above petitions and remanded the matter to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal considering the fact that further evidence is necessitated in the case. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Sri Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / tenant citing the decision in Aniyeri Jayarajan v. Valiya Kooleri Koorma Yesoda, 2003 KHC 412 : 2003 (2) KLJ 27 : 2003 (2) KLT 325 argued that it was for the bona fide need of the husband of the landlady the eviction was sought and that on the death of the husband of the landlady, the present need is abated and that therefore the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. He challenges the order allowing amendment of the Rent Control Petition also.