Kerala High Court
Mohamood Haji vs Devootty Amma on 25 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)KLT248
ORDER Cyriac Joseph, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from R.C.P.No. 128 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vadakara. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords.
2. The landlords filed R.C.P.No. 128 of 1997 praying for eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition rejecting the claim of the landlords under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Against the order of the Rent Control Court, the landlords filed R.C.A.No. 55 of 1999 in the Court of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. The Appellate Authority as per its judgment dated 7th July, 2001 confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court in respect of the claim under Section 11(4)(iii), but ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenants have filed this Revision Petition.
3. The Rent Control Court had found that the entrustment of the building to the first respondent in the R.C.P. and his brother and the rate of rent were not disputed by the tenants. It was also found that as per the evidence on record, the first respondent and his deceased brother Kunhabdulla Haji were occupying the petition schedule building which was entrusted to them as per Exts.A1 and A2 by late Kunhiraman Nambiar, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners in the R.C.P. The definite case of the petitioners in the R.C.P. was that the 5th petitioner required the petition schedule building to start an offset printing press to eke out his livelihood. According to the petitioners in the R.C.P., no other building was in the possession of the petitioners which could be spared for the 5th petitioner to start the offset printing press. The contention of the tenants was that the need alleged in the petition was not bona fide and that the said ground was raised with the oblique motive to evict the tenants from the petition schedule building. According to them, the 5th petitioner was running a photo copying business in another building. But the said allegation was vehemently denied by the 5th petitioner who was examined as P.W.1. After considering the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court held that P.W.1 (5th petitioner) was not at all a skilled or experienced person in the field of printing technology and there was nothing on record to believe the version of P.W. 1 that he had got practical experience to start an offset printing press in the petition schedule building as claimed by him. Considering that the petitioners were having enough landed properties and that they had let out the petition schedule building to the tenants for a monthly income of Rs. 12,000/- the Rent Control Court observed that the petitioners were well placed in the society and there was no need for them to do any business in the plaint schedule building. Though the Rent Control Court found that no evidence was placed by the tenants to show that the landlords have got their own vacant buildings in the locality, the court observed that the petitioners (landlords) were "substantial persons who were not intended to do any business" and held that the need alleged in the petition was not at all genuine or pressing.
4. However, in the impugned judgment, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has pointed out that P.W. 1 (5th petitioner in the R.C.P.) had given evidence that he had no employment, that he had a wife and two children, that he intended to start an offset printing press in the petition schedule building and that the petitioners appellants did not own any suitable building other than the plaint schedule building. P.W.1 had also deposed that a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs was required to start the business and that his brothers would help him to raise the capital. It was also stated that the other buildings owned by the appellants were let out to tenants. The Appellate Authority did not accept the finding of the Rent Control Court that there was no foundation for the pleading that the 5th appellant (P.W.1) was finding it difficult to make both ends meet. According to the Appellate Authority, the case of the 5th appellant was supported by the averments in para 3 of the petition that he was aged 37 years, had a wife and two children and was unemployed. The Appellate Authority also held that the Rent Control Court committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that P.W.1 was not skilled and experienced in the field of printing technology. The Appellate Authority pointed out that none of the respondents entered the witness box to deny the assertion of P.W.1 that he had undergone training in the year 1995 in Ideal Press owned by one Balachandra Menon. The Appellate Authority also observed that the filing of the Rent Control Petition in 1997 soon after the training of P.W.1 in a printing press was indicative of the bona fide need stated by the petitioners in the R.C.P. The Appellate Authority also held that even if P.W.1 did not have any experience in the field of printing technology, it would not affect the genuineness or bona fides of the need. According to the Appellate Authority, it is not the spirit of law that the petitioner should have experience in the business for seeking an order under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority also held that the Rent Control Court erred in rejecting the claim of the landlords on the ground that they had landed properties. As rightly pointed out by the Appellate Authority, no law says that a person owning lands should not start a business. The Appellate Authority also opined that the Rent Control Court went wrong in concluding that there was no need for P.W.1 to start a business as his family is well placed in the society. The Appellate Authority also rejected the finding of the Rent Control Court that the need urged by the 5th appellant/petitioner (P.W.1) was not bona fide since he did not start the business in the room taken on lease by Praveen, one of his nephews, who had gone abroad. As rightly pointed out by the Appellate Authority, the landlord is entitled to choose the building suitable for his purpose. The Appellate Authority has categorically held that the need set up by P.W.1 is bona fide.
5. In the light of the pleadings and evidence in the case, we agree with the conclusions and the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In our view, the Rent Control Court committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that the need set up by the petitioners in the R.C.P. was not bona fide. The reasons stated by the Rent Control Court for arriving at such a conclusion are totally erroneous, irrelevant and invalid. The reasons stated by the Rent Control Appellate Authority for holding that the need set up by the landlords was bona fide, are quite sound, valid and reasonable.
Hence, we do not find sufficient grounds or justification to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
6. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed.