Kerala High Court
P.R.Anandeswary Amma vs C.A.Varghese (Died) on 28 May, 2012
Author: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2012/7TH JYAISHTA 1934
RCRev..No. 172 of 2012 ()
-------------------------
RCA.9/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY PATHANAMTHITTA IN
RCP.14/2005 of RRENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVALLA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------
P.R.ANANDESWARY AMMA,, AGED 81 YEARS
W/O.CHETTIYAR,PADMAVILASATHU HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOYIPURAM VILALGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN
SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/ADDL.PETITIONERS:
-------------------------------
1. C.A.VARGHESE (DIED),, AGED 82 YEARS
S/O.ABRAHAM,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PALLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.(DIED).
2. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE,, AGED 70 YEARS
W/O.LATE C.A.VARGHESE,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPIRAM VILLAGE.
3. KUNJUMOL,, AGED 48 YEARS
D/O.LATE C.A.VARGHESE,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PALLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
4. MARYKUTTY,, AGED 48 YEARS
D/O.LATE C.A.VARGHESE,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
5. LEELAMMA,, AGED 43 YEARS
D/O.LATE C.A.VARGHESE,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
6. PONNAMMA,, AGED 40 YEARS
D/O.C.A.VARGHESE,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
7. SALI,, AGED 38 YEARS
D/O.LATE C.A.VARGHESE,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
8. DAISY ALIAS KOCHUMOL,, AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.LATE C.A.VARGHESE,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
9. LIZY ABRAHAM,
CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI,KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
10. SIGI ABRAHAM,
S/O.ABRAHAM,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE,KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
11. LIGI ABRAHAM ,
D/O.ABRAHAM,CHAMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
12. SIJI BIJO,
W/O.BIJO,CHEMATHACKAL HOUSE,PULLAD MURI
KOIPURAM VILLAGE.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R. NO. 172 OF 2012
------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2012
O R D E R
Ramakrishna Pillai,J The tenant is in revision. The original landlord, who expired during the pendency of the rent control appeal, leased out the tenanted premises to the revision petitioner in the year 1993 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. The original landlord sought eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11 (3). It was alleged that the revision petitioner defaulted in paying rent from May 2002 and the younger daughter of the deceased son of the original landlord and her husband, who are depending on the landlord, bona fide need the petition schedule building for starting a computer centre. It was further alleged that the revision petitioner has other sources of income and the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building is not the sole source of income of the revision petitioner. It was also alleged that there are other suitable rooms available in the locality to shift the business of the revision petitioner.
RCR. No. 172 /2012 2
2. The revision petitioner, who resisted the claim, contended that she, who is conducting ration shop in a tenanted premises, is mainly depending on the income derived from that and no other alternate accommodation is available in the locality to shift her business. It is also contended that the need is not valid and is only a ruse for eviction . The allegation regarding the default in payment of rent was also denied.
3. The learned Rent Controller, who tried the petition on the basis of the oral testimonies of PW1, CPW1 and CPW2 as well as Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts.B1 and B2, came to the conclusion that the rent was in arrears and the need alleged is bona fide. Thus eviction was ordered under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11 (3).
4. The revision petitioner went in appeal but without success. Thus she has come up in revision.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have also perused the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. As the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) is subject to the tenant's right under Section 11 (2)(c), we are not RCR. No. 172 /2012 3 interfering with the same.
6.Coming to Section 11(3), we notice that the original landlord died during the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal and the case was proceeded with by the legal heirs. The definite case of the original landlord was that he needed the petition schedule premises for starting a computer centre for his grand daughter and her husband. It is in evidence that the grand daughter of the landlord is a B.Tech. graduate and her husband is also a B.Tech Degree holder. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the legal heirs of the original landlord, who subsequently got impleaded in the Rent Control Appeal, did not come forward to substantiate the case of the original landlord. But, it has to be remembered that the legal heirs of the original landlord, who got additionally impleaded, defended the case put forth by the original landlord.
7. The husband of the daughter of the landlord gave evidence as PW1. This is evidence to show that PW1 was an employee in a computer firm and that he had worked as a Centre System Administrator in the APTECH Computer Education during the period ranging from 2000 - 2004. RCR. No. 172 /2012 4
8. As the testimony of PW1 was in tune with the averments in the rent control petition, the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority were convinced that the need alleged by the original landlord is bona fide and we see no reason to interfere with the same.
9. There is nothing in evidence to show that the original landlord is having any other room in the locality to conduct the proposed business.
10. Coming to the 2nd proviso to Section 11 (3), the burden is on the revision petitioner to prove that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso. She did not adduce any evidence in support of her claim. There is nothing on record to show that the business set up in the tenanted premises is the sole source of livelihood of the petitioner. She also failed in proving that no other a buildings are available in the locality to shift her business. The learned Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority appreciated the evidence on record with correct perspective and have arrived at the correct conclusion. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the authorities below under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. RCR. No. 172 /2012 5
11. In the result, the revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
12. When our decision was made known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel requested that one and half year's time be given to the revision petitioner/tenant to surrender the vacant possession of the tenanted premises. We are of the view that we will not be justified in allowing so much of time without hearing the respondent/landlord.
13. Hence, we issue notice to the respondents by speed post for hearing them on question of time if any that has to be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the vacant possession of the building.
The Execution Proceedings if any pending before the Munsiff's Court, Tiruvalla shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months.
Sd/-
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE.
RCR. No. 172 /2012 6 dpk