Parammal Jayanandan vs Parammal Jayanandan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2964 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                             &

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

 WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942

                    RCRev..No.9 OF 2021

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-09-2020 IN RCA 113/2019 OF
RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY.

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17-06-2019 IN RCP 64/2018 OF RENT
CONTROL COURT, KANNUR.


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT       :

           PARAMMAL JAYANANDAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 79 YEARS,
           PARAMMAL HOUSE, OPPOSITE ELAYAVOOR ZONAL OFFICE,
           MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, P.O.MUNDAYAD,
           ELAYAVOOR, KANNUR.

            BY ADV. SMT.C.LEENA

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS        :

      1     KAKKOTH RAJEEVAN,
            S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 61, 'SR COTTAGE',
            P.O.MUNDAYAD, ELAYAVOOR, KANNUR 670 331.

      2     VADAKKAYIL SREEJA,
            W/O.KAKKOTH RAJEEVAN, AGED 56, 'SR COTTAGE',
            P.O.MUNDAYAD, ELAYAVOOR, KANNUR 670 331.

            BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH SUKUMARAN.


     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.C.R No.9 of 2021                      2




                       A.HARIPRASAD & T.V.ANILKUMAR, J J.

                     --------------------------------------
                               R.C.R No.9 of 2021
                     --------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 27th day of January, 2021


                                    ORDER

T.V.ANILKUMAR, J

Concurrent orders of eviction passed by the courts below are

challenged in revision by the tenant who is the respondent in R.C.P No.64

of 2018 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur and appellant in

R.C.A.No.113 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority,

Thalassery.

2. Petition for eviction was filed by the respondents/landlords on

the ground of bonafide need for their son's occupation of the schedule

shoproom under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 1965, in short 'the Act', Their son named Rajeesh wanted to

conduct a bakery business and cool drinks shop in the shoproom after

evicting the revision petitioner. As a matter of fact, the revision petitioner is

also doing bakery business in the tenanted room. The revision

petitioner/tenant contended that the bonafide need set up is only a ruse for

eviction and the respondents are in possession of suitable premise for

conducting the proposed business. They claimed benefit of second proviso

to Section 11(3) of the Act.

3. The question as to the bonafide need was considered by the

Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority and

both courts on the basis of evidence as well as the respective contentions

raised by the parties accepted the plea of bonafides raised by the

respondents/landlords as genuine. The tenant's contention claiming benefit

of second proviso to Section 11(3) was rejected after evaluating the

evidence on record.

4. After hearing both sides, we do not find any merit in any one

of the contentions raised in this revision. We are satisfied with the

concurrent finding that the need set up by the respondents/landlords is

bonafide and the revision petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of second

proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the

tenant has been conducting bakery business since 2016, he requires a

minimum period of six months for shifting his business to a suitable place.

Having considered the submissions made, we are of the opinion that it is

only fair and reasonable to accept the demand made as reasonable.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed confirming the

concurrent orders of eviction subject to the revision petitioner fulfilling the

following conditions.

1. Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court, Kannur within two weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule room within a period of six months from today without any demur.

2. He shall clear off all admitted arrears of rent within a period of one month from today and continue to pay compensation for use and compensation at the agreed rate of rent until he actually vacates the premises.

3. In case any of the above conditions is breached by the revision petitioner, the execution court is free to execute the order of eviction without regard to the stipulation of time.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE amk