ABDUL ASEES Vs. SAHADEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant of the petition schedule building. The landlords/ respondents filed Rent Control Petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act]. The landlords sought eviction contending that they require vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms for the bona fide need of their son Dr. Sanal Dev to start a clinic. Dr. Sanal Dev is a specialist doctor, who is having specialised qualification and skills, which can be utilized only in a High-Tech Hospital. He is a specialist in Emergency Medicine. The landlords contended that he requires the building to start a clinic. The tenant disputed and stated that the bona fide requirement sought by the landlords is incorrect. Further, it was contended that the respondents/ landlords are having several vacant rooms with them and therefore the tenant is entitled to protection under the 1st proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The appellant/ tenant also contended that he is depending mainly on the income derived from the Super Market, which is being run by him in the petition schedule rooms and that no other rooms are available in the near proximity.

(2.) After hearing the arguments and evaluating the evidence, the Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition and ordered eviction of the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court did not grant protection under the 1st proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Further, there are several other vacant rooms available with the respondents/ landlords. The Rent Control Court also rejected the protection of 2nd proviso to the appellant/ tenant, stating that the respondents/ landlords failed to prove the requirements under the two limbs of the 2nd proviso despite the appellant/ tenant producing Exts.B5 to B10 documents.

(3.) According to the appellant/ tenant, the Rent Control Court has erred in finding that the landlords have bona fide requirement to get eviction of the appellant/ tenant from the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Court ought to have noted that the need and requirement of their son to start a clinic is especially disputed. The son for whom the need is alleged ought to have been examined before the Rent Control Court and nonexamination of son is fatal including the bona fide need of the landlords. In fact, the respondents/ landlords have not disclosed the availability of the vacant rooms in the Rent Control Petition. The act of non-disclosure of the crucial facts cuts at the bona fides of the need projected by the respondent/landlord. Further the Rent Control Court ought to have found that the respondents/ landlords have in possession of vacant rooms and they have not proved the special reason for not utilizing the vacant rooms. On these grounds as urged above, the appellant/ tenant prays for setting the judgment of the Rent Control Court/ IInd Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in RCA.No.136/2017 and prays for dismissal of RCP.No.20/2015 of the Rent Control Court, Perambra.