LAWS(SC)-2010-2-21

SESHAMBAL Vs. CHELUR CORPORATION CHELUR BUILDING

Decided On February 27, 2010
SESHAMBAL (DEAD) THROUGH L. RS. Appellant
V/S
CHELUR CORPORATION CHELUR BUILDING Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Special Leave arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby C.R.P. No. 558 of 1994 has been dismissed and the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the eviction petition filed against the tenant wife affirmed. In a nutshell, the facts giving rise to the controversy are as under:

(2.) Late Shri K. Sachindanda Iyer and his wife late Smt. A. Sheshambal Sachindanda Iyer owners of the premises in dispute let out the same to respondent No. 1 for a period of three years in terms of a lease dated 12th April, 1983. On the expiry of the lease period the owners filed RCP No. 116 of 1986 before the Rent Controller at Ernakulam seeking eviction of the tenant-occupant on the ground that they required the same for their bona fide personal occupation within the meaning of Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965. The prayer for eviction was opposed by the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that the owners did not require the demised premises and that the tenant would find it difficult to shift its business to any other premises on account of non-availability of a suitable accommodation for being so. The Rent Controller eventually came to the conclusion that the owners had failed to establish their bona fide requirement of premises. The Rent Controller held that the owners had shifted their residence from Cochin and were living with their daughter and son-in-law who were running a nursing home in that city.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the owners appealed to the Appellate Authority who affirmed the decision taken by the Rent Controller holding that the owners were residing with their daughter and son-in-law at Ernakulam in a building owned by the owners. The Appellate Authority also found that the owners had a cottage at Kodaikanal and that being fairly old had no reason to shift back to Ernakulam in search of better medical facilities especially when their own son-in-law was running a nursing home at Coimbatore where such facilities were available to them. Absence of any medical evidence to show that the owners suffered from any illness was also cited as a ground for dismissal of the prayer for eviction.