ELIAMMA CHACKO Vs. LEELA KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The respondents in R.C.P. No. 129185 are the revision petitioners. The respondent in the revision petition Mrs. Leela Karunakaran filed the Rent Control Petition for eviction of the tenants under S.11(2)(b) read with S.11(3) of the Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The case of the landlady was as follows:- The house which was scheduled in the Rent Control Petition belonged to her mother Smt. Devi Ammal. Smt. Devi Ammal entrusted the house to one Chacko on a monthly rent of Rs.15/- from 1.4.1964. The landlady obtained right over the property on 1.3.1969. The tenant attorned to her and agreed to pay rent at an enhanced rate of Rs.20/- per month from 1.4.69. The tenant Chacko died and the present revision petitioners are his legal representatives. The rent subsequent to 17.12.82 was in arrears. The petitioner in the Rent Control Petition has two daughters by name Usha Balaraj and Raji Prakash. Raji Prakash is now working as a Clerk in the State Bank of Travancore, Ernakulam. Her husband is an Officer of Dhanalakshmi Bank also working at Ernakulam. They are trying to get a transfer to Calicut or other near places. The landlady has permanently settled down at Calicut. Smt. Raji Prakash wants to set up a permanent resident at Calicut. Hence the landlady bona fide requires the scheduled building for occupation of her daughter Raji Prakash. Before filing a petition for eviction, a registered notice was issued to the tenants.

(3.) A counter statement was filed on behalf of the tenants. The bona fide need was disputed and denied. A contention was taken that the building was originally taken on rent in 1984. The arrears of rent was also denied. It was stated that the landlady has several other houses in Calicut which are more convenient for occupation. The tenant further contended that in 1973 a petition was filed for eviction by the landlady- respondent. But that was dismissed. Another counter statement was filed by respondents 1 and 3. Before the Rent Control Court the landlady was examined as PW 1 and her daughter Raji for whom the building was required was examined as PW 2. On behalf of the respondents, the first respondent, who is the first petitioner in the C.R.P. was examined as RW I.