Johnson K. Samuval vs Molly Mercilin

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner is the tenant of a residential building. The appeal filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Rent Control Court was dismissed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court, against which this revision petition is filed. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ''the Act''). The Rent Control Court allowed the eviction on both the grounds. The Appellate Authority has also concurred with the said finding.

We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. Poovappally M. Ramachandran Nair and Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Going by the averments made by the landlady, the petition schedule building was taken on rent by the tenant as per rental agreement dated 01.09.2008 for a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-. It is stated that the landlady is residing in a rented building and she is in bona fide need of the petition schedule building. She does not have any other vacant building in her possession to shift her residence also.

In paragraph 11 of the order, the Rent Control Court examined the bond fide need pleaded by the landlady. It was found that the landlady is now residing in the building owned by one Arshad Hussain for a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500/- and Ext. A4 series are the rent receipts, which supported the above contention. Ext. A8 is the rental agreement, produced before the Rent Control Court. Even though, the petitioner herein submitted that the landlady is having another residential building, no finding is there with regard to the possession of any vacant building with the landlady. Finally, the Rent Control Court on an assessment of the documentary and oral evidence found that the landlady is entitled to an order of eviction.

We find from the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that there is elaborate consideration of the contentions of both sides. In fact, in appeal, the petitioner filed two Interlocutory Applications as I.A. Nos. 2153 and 2105 of 2012, one for amending the objection and another for adducing further evidence. Those I.As were considered by the appellate authority along with the appeal. IA No. 2105/2012 was dismissed as evidenced from paragraph 12. In paragraph 13, the detailed evidence adduced by the landlord to establish the bona fide need has been discussed. It was found that the bona fide need is genuine.

On the basis of these items of evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there could not have been an order of eviction. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the courts have elaborately considered the matter and therefore none of those findings require interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

We are also of the view that the landlady has been successful in proving the bona fide need. It is clear that she is residing in a rental house now, which is clear from Ext. A8 rent agreement. Even though, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner very vehementally that the said finding is not correct, we cannot agree. If a person is residing in a rented house and is in need of the petition schedule building for own occupation and when the present arrangement stands proved in evidence by the landlady, it cannot be said that the bona fide need is not genuine.

We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority and hence revision petition is dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought one year''s time to vacate the premises, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. We grant time upto 31.12.2013 to the petitioner to vacate the premises on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner will file an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises within the time stipulated above.

The affidavit will be filed within one month.

(ii) The arrears of rent if any, as on today will be paid within one month and the receipt will be produced before the court concerned.

(iii) For use and occupation of the building, the tenant will continue to pay an amount at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month counting from today onwards till vacant possession is handed over to the respondent/landlady.

If any of the conditions are violated by the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of the above order. No costs.