Chandroth Tharavyayi Haji vs E. M Chandran

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

The petitioners are the landlords who filed an eviction petition under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (‘the Act’, for short) for evicting the respondent from the building leased out to him. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(3) and directed the respondent to vacate the petition-scheduled shop rooms. By the impugned order, the Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the said finding and dismissed the Rent Control petition on the ground that the petitioners have no bonafide in seeking eviction.

The landlord-tenant relationship is not in dispute. The petitioners are the co-sharers of the petition schedule shop rooms. They contended that they intend to put up a large-scale textile and readymade cloth business in wholesale and retail in the petition scheduled shop room as they do not have any engagement at present. The first, second and fifth petitioners jointly owned together with several other persons a building in the same locality and the rental income from the above said buildings was not sufficient to meet their daily needs and accordingly they decided to set up a business for themselves. It is further pleaded that when the petitioners expressed their need to the respondent in March 2014, instead of voluntarily vacating the building, the respondent initiated a suit against them with false allegations.

The respondent contended that the petitioners have no bonafide need to start a new business and they have several other buildings in joint and separate ownership in the very same city and there are many vacant rooms in the said buildings. It is also contended that the respondent filed a civil suit against the petitioners when they objected to the attempt of the respondent to extend his business, at the behest of one Rashid who is occupying a rented room adjacent to the petition scheduled shop rooms.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and as well as the respondent.

Having perused the entire case records, in particular the deposition of PW1, we are unable to uphold the views expressed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority observed as follows:

“17. The evidence of PW1 during cross-examination shows that the first petitioner has a huge building near the petition schedule building. According to PW1 the shop rooms in the said buildings are required for the bonafide need of children of the first petitioner. However the children of first petitioner also is stated to be bonafide need of the petition schedule building. They are impleaded as supplemental petitioners No. 6 to 10. The allegation in the petition is that petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are employed. PW1 admits that petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 has a separate building on the northern side of petition schedule building. It is a three storied building. PW1 is unable to exactly state the number of rooms available in the said building. However, he deposed that 10 to 15 rooms are available in the ground floor of the said building facing the road. It was let out to the tenants only about one or two years back. That proves that after the filing of the Rent Control Petition these rooms are let out to the tenants.”

One of the reasons upon which the Rent Control Appellate Authority entered into an adverse finding against the petitioners is that about 10 to 15 rooms were available on the ground floor of the building owned by petitioners No.1, 2 and 5 and those rooms were let out to the tenants about one or two years back. But the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the tenanted building is jointly owned by five persons and what they pleaded and proved was that all of them jointly require the vacant possession of the same for starting a business of their own. In that case, even if one or more of them have a vacant building, it cannot be said that the petitioners could have started the intended business in that building. The petitioners, together, have a separate identity and integrity when they do a joint business. PW1, the third petitioner, deposed before the court that apart from the first, second, and fifth petitioners, their children are also the joint owners of the said building. Thus, the petitioners cannot be asked to accommodate such a business in a building jointly owned by some among them together with a few other individuals, even if those individuals are their children.

The Appellate Authority further erred in observing against the petitioners on the ground that the first petitioner had another vacant building. When the third petitioner adduced evidence on behalf of the petitioners, he explained very well, during cross-examination, the disadvantages of the said building. According to him, the wife and children of the first petitioner intend to start a business of their own in the said building. There is nothing on record to discredit this version.

It is to be noted that the petitioners have not suppressed the fact that the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 5 own another building in the locality. They specifically pleaded about the said fact in the petition. Significantly, the petition scheduled building consists of a very large hall and four rooms and most of them are on the ground floor. It is the definite case of the petitioners that the said part of the building is advantageous to them for the proposed business. Though the third petitioner was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to discredit him as to the bonafide need projected by the petitioners. As the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Control Court found that the respondent is not entitled to get the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, there is no need to re-evaluate the said factual findings. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to get an eviction order against the respondent. In the above circumstances, we find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Therefore, the revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The order passed by the Rent Control Court is restored. The respondent shall vacate the premises within two months from today.