REJIMOL W/O SHAJI MATHER Vs. ABDUL NAZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is with respect to the correctness of the judgment in R.C.A. No. 17/2015 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam by the tenant. The Landlord had filed the Rent Control Petition for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(2.) Brief facts of the case: The Landlord /respondent is the owner of three rooms of a building known as 'kunnel building' and he is holding possession of one room in the first floor and one room in the ground floor. He is running business in stationary and fancy items in the ground floor of the building by name 'Dreams'. The tenant has taken the petition schedule room which is the other room in the first floor on a monthly rent of Rs.980/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.1500/- per month. Rent is in arrears from January 2013. The tenant is running a beauty parlour in the name and style "Mehandi Beauty Parlour". The other room in the first floor was also in the possession of the tenant and it was vacated for the use of the landlord. Large scale of items have to be stocked as the items kept in his shop are fast moving and are in demand. So there is lack of space and he intends to have an exclusive showroom for gift items and toys in the first floor to expand and develop his business so as to run his business in a more profitable way. Hence, a notice was issued to the tenant asking her to vacate the room in her possession as he requires additional accommodation for personal use.

(3.) The tenant refuted the claim contending that the need projected by the landlord is without any bona fides and if he genuinely needs to develop his business, he could do it with the space already in his possession. It is also contended that the business carried on in the tenanted premises is the only income she derives for her livelihood. Her husband is unemployed. No suitable rooms are available in the locality to shift her business and no rent is in arrears and hence contended that the petition is only to be dismissed. But the Rent Controller on evaluation of the evidence concluded that the bona fide need urged by the landlord is genuine and ordered eviction on the finding that the hardship that may cause to the tenant will not outweigh the advantage of the landlord. Even though the tenant has challenged the order of eviction before the Appellate Authority, the same was dismissed and so the concurrent findings is questioned in this revision petition.