JOLLY SAJEEV Vs. KOMACHADATH YUSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole revision petitioner challenging the impugned judgment of Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 4.1.2018 in R.C.A.No.249/2016, is the tenant of the Shop Room bearing Door No.KP.II/436 of Koorachundu Panchayat. She is the 1st respondent in R.C.P.No.14/2015 before the Rent Control Court, Perambra. The 2nd respondent was impleaded in R.C.P.No.14/2015 as her sub lessee. By order dated 31.8.2016, the Rent Control Court, Perambra, issued an order of eviction of both respondents accepting the plea of the landlord, who is the 1st respondent herein that he required the petition scheduled building for the occupation of his wife, Raseena. The order of the Rent Control Court was challenged by the respondents in R.C.P.No.14/2015 and the same was confirmed by the judgment of Appellate Authority which is impugned in this revision filed invoking Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The landlord-tenant relationship between parties is not a disputed fact. The scheduled shop room belonged to the the 1st respondent, the landlord as well as his brother who is presently employed abroad. R.C.P.No.14/2015 was filed by the 1st respondent herein on behalf of his brother also and therefore the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition was not disputed before any of these forums including this court.

(3.) The 1st respondent landlord was employed abroad till 2012. His case is that when he came back, he had no business or avocation to earn his livelihood and therefore he desired his wife, Raseena to conduct a business in DTP, Photostat and Stationery in the petition schedule shop room. According to him, she is capable of doing business and he is willing to make investment for his family. Since she is his dependent, he, invoking Section 11(3) of the Act, sought eviction of the revision petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent herein alleging bonafide need for occupation of his wife. He also alleged that the revision petitioner during the subsistence of tenancy parted with the tenanted premises and sub let the shop room to the 2nd respondent in this revision for monthly rent and therefore the revision petitioner ceased to depend on the alleged business carried on in the petition scheduled shop room.