MANU Vs. BHANUMATHY
LAWS(KER)-2003-10-55
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on October 08,2003

MANU Appellant
VERSUS
BHANUMATHY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965.
(2.) Petitioner - landlord is the owner of the petition schedule building which was rented out to the tenant on 22.6.1995 on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. Rs.3,000/- was paid as advance. Rent is in arrears from 1994 onwards. Petitioners son Shyam is unemployed and he wanted to start a provision store. He is dependent on the petitioner. Petitioner is the landlady. Respondent tenant filed counter affidavit stating that the attempt is only a ruse to evict him. Further it was stated that there is no arrears of rent. It was pointed out that landlord has got other building and one of the vacant buildings was subsequently sold to his tenant by name Valsan for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Factum of getting vacant possession of the room and the conduct of sale of the room to the tenant concerned, according to the tenant, evidence lack of bona fide in the plea of the landlady. Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently found the need urged by the landlady is bona fide. It has come out in evidence that the landladys son is unemployed. He was examined as PW 1. He deposed that he is depending upon his mother and the need is bona fide. There is nothing to show that the son is otherwise employed. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the need urged by the landlady is bona fide. We find no reason to take a different view from that of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority.
(3.) Landlord has admitted the fact that when the bona fide need subsisted one of the shop rooms fell vacant and the same was sold to one Valsan who was its tenant for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Counsel for the tenant submitted that the said room could have been utilised by the landladys son. We are of the view, the mere fact that landlady sold one of the rooms fell vacant to the tenant does not mean that there is no bona fides in the plea for evicting another tenant. Selling away of another tenanted room may be due to various reasons. Landlady may not be getting sufficient rent from the tenanted premises. Landlady may also be in need of money for various purposes including marriage of her daughter, for discharging the liabilities and may also be enamoured of the delay in getting the tenant evicted. Landlord may also choose a tenant who is paying lesser rent for eviction, for bona fide own occupation. Mere fact that one of the tenanted buildings was sold to the tenant while the bona fide need existed does not mean that there is no bona fide in the need urged for evicting another tenanted premises. Even if the above facts were proved the claim under S.11(3) cannot be defeated if the plea is bona fide.;


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