K. SIVADASAN Vs. SAILAJA V.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant/respondent in R.C.P. No. 35 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent/landlady filed an application for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short). The case of the landlady in the petition was that she is the owner of the property and she had let out the building to the tenant in the year 1998 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ -. The rent has been enhanced periodically and from July 2010, the rent is Rs. 1,250/ - per month. The tenancy expired in June 2011. He wanted extension of time to vacate the premises. He had kept the rent in arrears from October 2011. The landlady wanted the petition schedule building for her son Deepu to start a computer centre as he is educated and unemployed and he is depending on the petitioner for that purpose. Though she approached the tenant to vacate the premises on that ground, he did not vacate the premises. In spite of notice issued, he had not vacated and did not pay the arrears of rent. So the petitioner filed the petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need.

(2.) The revision petitioner/respondent before the court below entered appearance and contended that there was no rent in arrears. He denied the allegation that after the expiry of the lease in June 2011 he had agreed to vacate the premises. The allegation that rent from October 2011 is in arrears is also not correct. He had paid rent till December 2011 and she had refused the rent from January 2012. He is not a defaulter. Since she tried to vacate him forcibly, he filed O.S. No. 351 of 2012 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram against forceful eviction and it is thereafter that the present petition has been filed with a claim for bona fide need, which is not genuine. The son of the petitioner is conducting a textile business in Pothencode for the last two years and he has no idea to conduct any other business. He had also contended that he is eking out his livelihood from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and there are no other buildings available in the locality. He had also submitted that he had renewed the agreement from 17.10.2011. At that time, he had paid rent up to December 2011 and thereafter the rent was not received. It was necessary for renewing licence for sale of Diwali crackers that the agreement was executed. So he prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) The landlady filed amendment stating that she is not in possession of any other building suitable for this purpose. In order to prove the case of the landlady, the landlady herself was examined as P.W. 1 and her son was examined as P.W. 2. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as P.W. 3 and Exts. A1, A2, A3 series and C1 were marked on their side. CPWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts. B1 to B5 were marked on his side.