AMMEER HAMSA Vs. RAMABHADRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these revisions arise out of one and the same judgment, both revisions are heard together and disposed of accordingly. These revision petitions have been filed, challenging the judgment allowing R.C.A. No. 18/2017 in part and dismissing R.C.A. No. 29/2017, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam. (The parties are referred to as in the Rent control petition). The petitioners-landlord filed R.C.P. No. 24/2012 before the Principal Rent Control Court, Kollam seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [for short, the Act]. According to the petitioners, the petition schedule shop room, which was leased out to the respondent, belonged to the first petitioner. Since the first petitioner is working abroad, the second petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule shop room. The rent was in arrear and the petitioners bona fide require the petition schedule building for starting a hotel business for the first petitioner. The first petitioner has been working abroad since the last more than 30 years, and he decided to return from the Gulf country and thereafter conduct a hotel business. So, he wants the petition schedule shop room for starting a hotel business. He has no other building of his own in his possession to start the proposed business; but, several other buildings are available in the locality to shift the business of the respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises. So also the respondent-tenant is not mainly depending on the income derived from the business carried on in the tenanted premises. Therefore, they are entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Further, the petitioners-landlord contended that the respondent-tenant used the tenanted premises in such a manner so as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently by making unauthorised constructions and the Municipal authorities initiated proceedings against the petitioners under Section 406(1) and 406(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, alleging unauthorised construction in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Therefore, they are entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act also.

(2.) The respondent-tenant resisted the claim for eviction contending that the need projected is not bona fide and it is a pretext for eviction only. He is entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, as he is mainly depending on the income derived from the business in the tenanted premises and no other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift his business. The respondent-tenant denied the allegation that he used the building in such a manner so as to reduce the value and utility of the building, materially and permanently. According to him, he has not made any construction in a manner reducing the value and utility of the building. On the other hand, he has made some minor repairs and decoration works, which would add the value and utility of the building. So, he is not liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. As regards the claim for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, the respondent-tenant contended that no amount was due from him, as arrears, to the petitioners.

(3.) On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court rejected the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) and 11(2)(b) and allowed the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.