K. GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. K. MAQBOOL SHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is at the instance of the respondent/tenant in Rent Control (O.P.) No.4 of 2012 before the Rent Control Court, Punalur who was ordered to be evicted in a petition filed by the landlord, who is the respondent herein. Grounds of eviction urged are under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (In short, "the Act"). Parties are hereinafter referred to as the landlord and tenant for clarity.

(2.) Bare minimum pleadings required for our purpose are as follows: Shoproom described in the petition schedule belonged to the landlord's father and on his death, his legal heirs entered into a registered partition vide document No.4455 of 2008 of SRO, Punalur. It is the definite case that in the partition, the petition schedule room was set apart to the landlord. Petition schedule room was let out to the tenant in the year 1982 fixing a monthly rent of Rs. 900/-. Tenant is conducting a cycle shop in the room. Landlord is a chartered accountant by profession and he runs a firm by name K.Maqbool Shah & Company for the past several years in an old building on the rear side of the petition schedule room. Landlord wanted to construct a new building by demolishing the old building occupied by him on the hind side of the petition schedule room. He also proposed to demolish the petition schedule room for the purpose of facilitating direct access from Quilon-Chenkotta road to his office. Ext.A2 series are the building permit and plan. Landlord completed construction of the building based on an understanding with the tenant that in order to gain direct road frontage to the newly constructed building and for entrance from the main road the tenant would vacate the petition schedule room as and when the new building was constructed. However, the tenant reneged and did not vacate the premises. Hence the eviction petition is filed on the aforementioned grounds. It is also seen that Ext.A7 notice was issued to the tenant before filing the eviction petition.

(3.) Tenant filed a counter statement contending that the bonafide need set up is untrue. Identity of the buildings and land is also disputed. It is his case that in 1982, the landlord's predecessor approached the tenant informing him that they intend to construct a building and sought financial help from the tenant for the construction assuring that the tenant could continue in the building for rent without fixing any term. It is therefore contended that the tenant has a permanent tenancy in respect of the building. According to the tenant's version, a sum of Rs. 65,000/- was given by him to the landlord's predecessor for the building construction. Therefore he is not liable to be evicted. The tenant conducts a shop in the petition schedule room and he was also dealing with plumbing and electrical items. Later, he stopped the plumbing and electrical items business to facilitate free access to the building owned by the landlord on the rear side. Landlord demolished his family house on the backside of the petition schedule room and constructed a substantial building. Access to the building is from MLA road situated on the southern side of the property. He constructed a concrete bridge across a water channel lying in between his property and MLA road. Landlord's claim that he needed eviction of the petition schedule room for demolishing it for providing access to the new building is without any bonafides. It is only a ruse to evict the tenant. There is no necessity to demolish the building for gaining direct access to the newly constructed building. The tenant is living on the income derived from the trade in the petition schedule room. No suitable building is available in the locality.