M.M. Aimulla vs Reena Sebastian

A. Hariprasad, J

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and respondent.

Aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority at the instance of the respondent on an

application filed under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), the revision

petitioner has approached this Court.

Case of the respondent/landlord is that the revision petitioner/tenant has kept rent in arrears and therefore she is entitled to claim eviction under

Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Besides, the respondent/landlord is doing business in plastic items in a room taken for rent in Aluva town. According to

respondent/landlord, the room is not sufficient for storing her articles. Therefore, she needed the petition schedule room bonafide for her business.

These rival contentions were considered by the Rent Control Court with reference to the testimony of PW's 1 to 3 and RW1 and also Exts.A1 to A16.

The Rent Control Court granted eviction, on both grounds, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence.

Unsuccessfully the revision petitioner challenged the order of eviction passed by the lower authority before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

Rent Control Appellate Authority, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, found that the order of eviction is legally sustainable.

Having regard to the submissions at the Bar and on going through the impugned orders, we are of the view that there is no illegality, irregularity or

impropriety in the orders passed by the authorities below. Therefore, we find no merit in the revision.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that for nearly about 30 years, the revision petitioner/tenant is doing a wholesale business of

banana in the petition schedule room. He needs some time to locate another suitable building in the locality to shift his business.

Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that the revision petitioner/tenant has shifted his business to Ernakulam market and he

virtually doing nothing in the petition schedule room. We are not going to decide those rival contentions. Having found that the revision petitioner/tenant

is occupying the building for reasonably long time, we find that he should be given six months time to locate another suitable building for his business.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

The revision petitioner/tenant is allowed to continue in the building for a period of six months from today on fulfilling the following conditions :

(a) Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court, within two weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the

petition schedule room within a period of six months from today without any demur.

(b) He shall clear off all the admitted arrears of rent within three weeks and shall continue to pay the agreed rent to the respondent for use and

occupation of the building until he actually vacates the premises.

(c) It is brought to our notice that steps for delivery of the building had already been taken. The revision petitioner/tenant shall be permitted to occupy

the building for a period of six months, if he fulfils the aforementioned conditions. If not, the landlord is free to proceed with the delivery.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.