Puthiyandi Chandran vs C. Rukhiya

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner/tenant challenges in this Revision the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The respondents filed R.C.P. No. 229 of 2010 against the petitioner under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. R.C.P. No. 227 of 2010 filed by the respondents/landlords against the tenant (Anoop) was tried along with R.C.P. No. 229 of 2010 and those Rent Control Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment.

The petition schedule building was leased out to the tenant on 18.3.1999. Originally the tenant was conducting light and sound business in the building. At present, he is conducting the business of hiring goods for marriages and other parties and storing those articles in the petition schedule building. The building originally belonged to one Ahammed and on his death, the rights in the building devolved upon the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition and one Shameer and Shakeer. Shameer and Shakeer are employed abroad. The first petitioner in the Rent Control Petition is the widow of Ahammed and the second petitioner is her daughter. The need put forward by the landlords is that the second petitioner in the Rent Control Petition bona fide needs the building for starting a ready-made shop in the room in R.C.P. Nos. 229 of 2010 and 227 of 2010. The upstair portion of the building is in the occupation of other tenants. It was alleged that Sameera, the second petitioner in the Rent Control Petition, is an expert tailor and she had gained prior experience in the business of ready-made garments.

The landlords also contended that the tenant owns a big building bearing number ELP.XIII/635 in the locality and that building is in the possession of the tenant. The landlords also contended that the building bearing No. ELP.VIII/762, another big building, was taken on lease by the tenant and that building is in his occupation. Therefore, the landlords contended that the tenant is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

The tenant disputed the bona fide need put forward by the landlords. He also raised a contention, though vaguely, that the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act is not made out. The tenant also raised a contention that the landlords have other buildings in their possession in the same locality. The tenant raised a contention that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

Before the Rent Control Court, the second petitioner in the Rent Control Petition was examined as PW1 and the tenants in R.C.P. Nos. 227 and 229 of 2010 were examined as RW1 and RW2 respectively.

The Rent Control Court, on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the bona fide need put forward by the landlords is established in the case. The evidence of PW1 was believed by the Rent Control Court. The contention raised by the tenant that the bona fide need was put forward as a ruse for eviction was rejected by the Rent Control Court. It was found that PW1 has got definite idea as to the nature of the business to be conducted in the shop rooms. It was also found that a single room would not be sufficient for meeting the need put forward by the landlords.

As regards the availability of the first proviso, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant failed to specify the door number or the location of the building allegedly in the possession of the landlords. The Rent Control Court held that the evidence on record is insufficient to hold that the landlords are in possession of any other vacant building in the locality in order to attract the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The contention raised by the tenant that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso was negatived by the Rent Control Court. No accounts were produced by the tenant to show that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. It is also not proved that no other buildings are available in the locality to accommodate the business of the tenant. It has come out in evidence that few multi storeyed buildings have come up in the locality and the tenant can get other proper accommodation for his business.

With respect to the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found that building ELP.XIII/635 is owned by the tenant and it is in his possession. The Commissioner found that articles for hiring goods were stored in that building. On going through the averments in the counter statement filed by the tenant, the Rent Control Court held that there is clear admission on the part of the respondent that he acquired rooms for storing his business materials. The contention put forward by the tenant that alternative building was acquired as a storage place for the goods with respect to the business in the petition schedule building was not accepted by the Rent Control Court. It was also found that building ELP.VIII/762 is in the possession of the tenant. Thus, the Rent Control Court found that the landlords established both the grounds under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority considered the evidence in the case and confirmed the view taken by the court below. Reliance was placed on Exts.A4 and A5 extracts of the Building Tax Register to hold that the tenant is in occupation of other buildings in the locality, one owned by him and the other owned by another landlord and occupied by the tenant.

The findings rendered by the courts below are concurrent. The findings are findings of fact. The revisional court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act, would be slow to interfere with the findings of fact rendered by the authorities below unless it is established that the proceedings of the courts below are vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. There is no such ingredient available in the case to interfere with the well considered findings rendered by the Rent Court and the Appellate Authority. The Revision lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed.

Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant time till 31.7.2015 to the tenant to vacate the premises. Accordingly, time upto 31.7.2015 is granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court on or before 31.1.2015, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building on or before 31.7.2015 and also on condition that the tenant shall deposit the entire arrears of rent, if any, before the Rent Control Court on or before 31.1.2015 and also on condition that the monthly rent shall be paid on or before 10th of the succeeding months. If the tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the landlord would be entitled to proceed with the execution. If the tenant complies with the conditions, the execution proceedings shall not be commenced/continued till 31.7.2015.