KAMALA V.V Vs. JAMEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the original tenant against whom R.C.P.No.41 of 2010 before the Rent Control Court, Thalassery was instituted. The eviction sought by the respondents/ landlords, who are co-owners under Section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1965 (for short 'the Act') was granted only under Section 11(3). Grounds under Section 11(4)(ii) and Section 11(4)(iv) were rejected. The original tenant died after the order of eviction and the revision petitioners, who are his legal heirs filed R.C.A.No.106 of 2015 before Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, challenging eviction under Section 11(3) and it was dismissed. The order dismissing eviction petition under Section 11(4)(iv) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act has become final, since the respondents have not filed any appeal challenging the same. What is under challenge in this revision is the concurrent order of eviction passed by both courts below under Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) The tenanted shop room bears door No.32/259 in which the original tenant was conducting bakery business. It is one of the five roomed larger building which was originally owned by the predecessor of the respondents and after her death, it devolved on the respondents as co- owners. The case of the landlords is that, respondents 3 and 4 were living in Burma being engaged in hotel business. They wound up the hotel business with an idea to start similar business in the entire building of which petition schedule shop room forms part of. There are other tenants also occupying rooms in the rest of the building against whom separate Rent Control Petitions have been instituted for eviction and they are also pending. According to respondents, the building is old and dilapidated and they bona fide require to conduct a hotel business after reconstructing a new building using their funds. According them, they have necessary plan and licence also for the purpose. It is said that respondents 3 and 4 have no suitable building in possession for conducting hotel business.

(3.) The contention of the revision petitioners is that the respondents have no intention to start hotel or any business and the eviction proceeding is nothing short of a pretext for eviction. It is alleged that the respondents 3 and 4 are doing some business in Chennai and they have no bona fide need to conduct hotel business in the proposed reconstructed building. They were denied to have any fund, necessary plan and licence for reconstructing the building. The revision petitioners claimed the benefit of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, contending that their sole source of livelihood is from the income, which they derive from bakery business and further no suitable buildings are available in the locality for shifting their business.