MUHAZIR.C.V. Vs. VINAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant who is facing an order of eviction concurrently passed under Sec.11 (3) and an order fixing a fair rent under Sec.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Both the petitioners and the respondent are the legal heirs of the deceased original landlord and tenant. According to the petitioner, the petition schedule building originally belonged to one Achuthan and after his death the petition schedule building devolved upon his sons, first petitioner and Narayanan under a will executed by the deceased Achuthan. Now the present rent control petition is filed by the petitioners with the knowledge and consent of other legal heirs who are also co-owners of the petition schedule building. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner bona fide needs the petition schedule building for starting an auto mobile spare parts shop and he has no independent sources of income for his livelihood. Further it is averred in the petition that they have no other vacant buildings of their own in their possession for starting the said business. But so many other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift the business of the respondent from the petition schedule building. Further it was averred that the tenancy commenced in the year 1970 with a monthly rent of Rs.22.50 only and that rent is still prevailing. In short, there was no enhancement of rent after the commencement of tenancy in the year 1970. According to them, the petition schedule building is situated in a commercially important area in Thalassery town and the prevailing rent of other similar buildings are very high and the existing rent of the petition schedule building is disproportionate with the rent of those buildings. Therefore they are entitled to get the fair rent fixed in accordance with the commercial importance of the locality, prevailing rent of the similar buildings and the amenities provided to the petition schedule building. They claimed fair rent at the rate of Rs.3500/-.

(2.) On the other hand, the respondent resisted the claim for an order of eviction under Sec.11 (3) of the Act contending that there is no bona fides in the need projected in the petition and it is a pretext for eviction only. It is also contended that they are entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Sec.11 (3) of the Act and the petitioners are in possession of other vacant buildings, for starting the proposed business.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court allowed the application on a finding that the need projected is a bona fide one and the respondents are not entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Sec.11 (3) of the Act. Further, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- from the date of petition. In appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction passed under Sec.11 (3) as such, without any interference but reduced the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.1,500/-. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below under Sec.11 (3) are mainly challenged in this revision petition.