AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J
All these revision petitions are filed against the common judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31 of 2009. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The eviction petitions were filed separately against different tenants. In all the cases, the ground and the genesis is a common one. In RCP No. 28 of 2006, the eviction has been ordered under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ''the Act'').
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bona fide need pleaded is not genuine. It is submitted that the landlord had filed insolvency petition and therefore, eviction petition has not been considered by the authorities below by appreciating the said contention.
In fact, a reference to the orders passed by the authorities below shows that the said aspect was considered. It was found that the Insolvency Petition was dismissed for default in the year 2000 and the petition for eviction was filed only in the year 2006. Therefore, the said circumstance cannot go against the bona fide need, pleaded by the landlord.
It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the plea raised by the petitioners that the building is an old fashioned one, which is not fit for conducting a jewellery shop ought to have been considered by the authorities below. It is clear from the order passed by the Rent Control Court that all these objections were overruled and after entering into a detailed discussion of the oral and documentary evidence, eviction has been ordered. In fact, the landlord has some experience in the field as evident from Exts. A18 and A19 and he is a recognized goldsmith. Ext. A18 is of the year 1986. Even though, it was argued by the learned counsel for the tenants before the Appellate Authority that the documents were concocted for the purpose of the case, that was not accepted.
We also find that there is no reason to doubt the bona fide need of the landlord and he is also having experience in the field.
With regard to the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the findings are against the tenants. It is clear from the order passed by the Appellate Authority that no books of accounts have been produced for proving the income of the tenants. It is also clear that the tenants are employing various employees in the respective business. The reports of the Commissioner show that there are alternate buildings available in the locality, which are lying vacant. The details show that the following buildings are remaining vacant i.e., (1) Sunny Junction Building, (2) Thoppil Towers Building, (3) Anugraha Shopping Complex, (4) Choorackal Building, (5) C.P. Paul''s Building, (6) City Heights and (7) K.V. Devassikutty Building. The reports of the Commissioners were marked as Exts. C1 to C4.
As far as RCP No. 28 of 2006 is concerned from which RCR No. 242 arises, there is a finding u/s 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act.
A reading of the order passed by the authorities below show that there is proper discussion of the evidence and pleadings. There is clear evidence of sub tenancy. The grounds u/s 11(4)(ii) have also been properly discussed. We find no reason to interfere with the said findings. Accordingly, we dismiss these revision petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners sought one year time to vacate the premises, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. We grant time up to 31.12.2013 to the petitioners to vacate the premises on the following conditions:
a. The respective revision petitioners will file separate affidavits undertaking to vacate the premises within the time granted by this Court. The affidavits will be filed within one month from today.
b. The arrears of rent, if any, as on 30.06.2013 will be deposited/paid within one month from today.
c. For use and occupation of the tenanted premises, the respective tenants will pay an amount at the enhanced monthly rate, as shown hereunder, till vacant peaceful possession is handed over to the landlord, from the date of this order.
In RCR No. 241 of 2013, the tenant will pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from 01.07.2013. In RCR No. 242 of 2013, the tenant will pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, in RCR No. 243 of 2013, the tenant will pay rent at the rate of Rs. 200 per month and in RCR No. 244 of 2013 the tenant will pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.
If any of the conditions are violated, the petitioners will not be entitled for the benefit of this order. No costs.