JOHN Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant who was respondent in R.C.P. No. 4/94 before the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad is the revision petitioner. The petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein for eviction of the rent under S.11(2)(b) for the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord contended that he purchased the petition schedule premises in October, 1992 where the tenant was running a Cinema theatre on a rental arrangement with the assignor of the landlord, that after the purchase a fresh lease agreement was entered into for a period of 11 months from 1.3.1993 onwards for a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-, that the tenant paid the rent only for the month of March, 1993 and kept the rent in arrears for the subsequent period. Later, the petition was amended adding ground under S.11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. According to the tenant, original lease arrangement was with the 1st respondent and she was conducting a theatre in the premises with the assistance of the 2nd respondent as its Manager. Respondents 3 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent. The 1st respondent/tenant was holding the premises on a lease from the Chakkola Lonappan from January,1965 onwards for a monthly rent of Rs.90/-, that she was running the Cinema theatre in the building, that the rent was enhanced to Rs.120/- p.m. from January, 1970 onwards, that the rent upto October, 1992 was paid regularly to the then landlord, that rent is in arrear only from November, 1993 at the rate of Rs.120/- p.m. and that there was no lease arrangement with the petitioner/landlord agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. The tenant also denied the claim of the landlord for eviction of the building on the ground of bona fide need under S.11(3) and 11(4)(iv).

(2.) The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under S.11(2)(b), but rejected the claim under S.11(3) and 11(4)(iv). The landlord as well as the tenant filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur as R.C. A. No. 6/98 and R.C.A. No. 136/97 respectively. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals upholding the order of the Rent Control Court. Aggrieved by the above, the tenant has come up in revision.

(3.) It is contended by the revision petitioner that apart from the interested testimony of the landlord, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the tenant had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. Both the Courts have erred in assuming without basis that the rent might have been fixed at Rs.2,000/-. According to the revision petitioner, the appellate authority has misconstrued the scope of the decision of this Court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala, 1995 (2) KLT 848 , and it proceeded to fix "the rent due" without jurisdiction. The revision petitioner has filed C.M.P. No. 3415/99 praying this Court to receive certified true extracts of the entries relating to the pass book of the petitioner in the ledger of the South Indian Bank. Copy of the above document is produced along with the petition.