Decided on March 25,2003

GOPINATHAN Respondents


- (1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent in R.C.P. No.34 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur. The respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioner in the said Rent Control Petition.
(2.) The landlord filed R.C.P. No.34 of 1985 under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In the Rent Control Petition, the landlord contended as follows. The petition schedule building was rented out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- on the basis of a rent agreement executed by him whereby he had agreed to pay the rent on the 23rd day of every month. A provision was also made in the rent deed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case of default in payment of rent. There was a previous proceeding for realising the arrears of rent covering the period from 23.12.1972 to 23.1.1975 and the decree amount was paid only recently. The respondent is not in the habit of paying the rent regularly even after the earlier proceedings and the rent from 23.8.1983 is in arrears. The petitioner is at present residing with his wife and children in the house belonging to his father along with his parents. His stay with the parents is not peaceful. Hence, the petitioner needs the petition schedule building for having a separate residence with his wife and children. The other buildings belonging to the petitioner are also in the occupation of the tenants and the petition schedule building is more convenient for the residence of the petitioner with his family. A notice was issued on 13.11.1984 demanding vacant possession of the petition schedule building. The respondent sent a sum of Rs.100/- and the balance amount is still in arrears. The respondent has not surrendered the building pursuant to the notice.
(3.) The respondent / tenant filed objection admitting that the rent was in arrears as alleged. However, he contended that the need alleged by the petitioner was not bona fide and that the petitioner's intention was only to dispose of the building after getting the respondent evicted. It was also averred that the landlord had recently sold out three residential buildings. According to the respondent / tenant, the petition schedule building is a small one and it is not suitable for the residence of the petitioner in accordance with his social status. It was further alleged that the petitioner had other buildings outside Kerala and that he was residing there.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.