K. Ramakrishnan, J. - (1.) R.C.R. No. 237/2014 was filed by the tenant while R.C.R. No. 283/2014 was filed by the landlord in R.C.P.No.55 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam. For the purpose of convenience, we are referring the status of the parties as 'landlord' and 'tenant' in these revisions.
(2.) The landlord filed the application for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide need and subsequent acquisition of building by the tenant under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11 (4)(iii) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the "Act"). The case of the landlord was that the petition schedule building belongs to him and it was let out to the respondent by their mother on a rent of Rs. 950/- and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs. 1,550/- per month. The tenant paid rent up to August 2008 and thereafter kept the rent in arrears. The mother of the petitioner died and the petitioner and his sisters became the legal heirs of their mother and became the joint owners of the petition schedule building and the other legal heirs have relinquished their right over the property in his favour as per Sale Deed No.6080/2010 dated 6.11.2010 of Kundara Sub-Registrar's Office and he has become the sole owner of the petition schedule building. The respondent is conducting textile business in the petition schedule building and he had constructed a house near his own house and doing his present business there. It is situated half a kilometer away from the petitioner's building and he is not earning out his livelihood from the business conducted in the petition scheduled building and he has got sufficient space in the newly constructed building for conducting the business. The petitioner is a retired Administrative Officer from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and he is without any employment and he intended to start a business in household articles in the petition scheduled building. The petitioner sent a notice to the tenant to vacate the premises stating these reasons, but he did not sent any reply. He had not vacated the premises as well. He has got sufficient experience and resource to start the business. Further he had also stated that the petition scheduled building is close to his residential building and if a door is provided on the southern wall of the building, he can have entrance to the petition scheduled building from his house and that will be convenient for him to conduct the business as well. So the petitioner filed application for eviction under Section 11 (2)(b),11(3) and 11 (4)(iii) of the Act.
(3.) The respondent filed counter contending as follows: At the time when the application was filed, he has not become the owner of the property and he is only a co-owner and without juncture of others, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain an application for eviction. He had also contended that he is not in possession of any building and the property belong to one, Annie John. He had also submitted that he is conducting a textiles business in a building and he is solely depending on the income derived from the business that is being conducted in the petition schedule building. The allegation that the rent was kept in arrears was not correct. He had sent a reply notice stating that he is willing to pay the rent and wanted the landlord to furnish the bank account in which the amount had to be deposited. But no reply was sent to the same by the landlord and that was how the rent happened to be in arrears. Since he is solely depending on the income derived from the business, he is not liable to be evicted from the petition scheduled building. Thereafter, he had amended the counter statement stating that after the filing of the petition, the landlord had come into possession of another building. Further, he is also having a building behind the petition scheduled building which he is using it as a godown and that can be converted into a shop room wherein he can conduct the intended business. So there is no bonafides on the part of the petitioner in filing the application. He also denied the bona fide need alleged. According to him, the landlord is a wealthy person and there is no necessity for him to start a business and the intention to start a business is put forward only as a ruse for eviction. So he prayed for dismissal of the application.;