Lathika vs George

B. Kemal Pasha, J.—The tenant/counter petitioner in R.C.P. No. 17 of 2009 of the Rent Control Court, Kochi who is the appellant in R.C.A. No. 61 of 2010 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam has come up in revision challenging the judgment in R.C.A. No. 61 of 2010. The R.C.P. was filed u/s 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965 by the landlord who is conducting sales in electrical items in the room adjacent to the petition schedule shop room. The landlord became the title holder of the building and property through a bequeath by the late father of the landlord through Ext.A1 will. The landlord wants to have extra space to develop his business and therefore he bona fide needs additional accommodation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Courts below have failed to consider the bona fide need for additional accommodation urged by the landlord and to weigh the comparative hardships of the tenant properly.

Even in the midst of the limited scope of scanning the evidence in a rent control revision, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has led us through the evidence in the R.C.P. On going through the evidence and the order passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence adduced by both sides in its correct perspective and have arrived at a correct conclusion regarding the bona fide need urged by the landlord, u/s 11(10) of the Act.

Both the Courts below have carefully considered the question of comparative hardship also within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 11(10) of the Act. It has come out that the business, in fact, being conducted by the tenant in the schedule building is one being conducted by her husband. The husband of the tenant has other textile business also and has been getting sizable income from the said business. The landlord who is presently getting Rs. 200/- daily as profit from the business wants to expand his business for getting a good income for his livelihood. There is absolutely nothing to interfere with the findings entered by both the Courts below that the granting of the order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on the ground u/s 11(8) of the Act will never outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and the same is not liable to be interfered with. This revision is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed, and we are doing so.

In the result,

(a) This revision is dismissed.

(b) The tenant is granted four months'' time from today to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlord on the following conditions:

(i) He remits the entire arrears as on today before the executing court within three weeks from today and files an affidavit before the executing court within three weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within four months from today.

(ii) He pays charges towards use and occupation of the building at the current rent rate from today till he gives vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.

(c) Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four months if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied.

(d) If there is default in performing any of the conditions imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenant as per this order will stand recalled automatically and the executing court shall effect delivery forthwith.