AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J.
The concurrent order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is under challenge in this revision by the tenant.
Eviction was claimed for the bonafide need of the landlord to put up a new building in the property and to start business in textiles and toys.
The Rent Control Court found the need pleaded to be bonafide. The tenant’s claim for the benefit of the first and second provisos to Section 11(3), was negatived.
We have heard learned counsel Sri.Muhammed Hussain K.M. on bahalf of the revision petitioner-tenant.
The landlord was examined as PW1. He deposed about the bonafide need pleaded. The building in question is in a dilapidated condition. Ext.A31 is the notice issued in the said regard by the Corporation. Ext.A20 is the Commissioner's Report in OS 672/2019 which was a suit between the parties. Therein the Commissioner has reported that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition and has partially collapsed. The Advocate Commissioner who has submitted Ext.A20 was examined as PW5. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner deputed in this case by the appellate authority. In Ext.C1 it is reported that major part of the building has collapsed and the balance portion is in a fragile condition. Thus the dilapidated condition of the building is proved. The landlord intends to demolish the building and put up new building to conduct a business therein. The concurrent findings of the authorities with regard to the bonafide need is based on the materials and warrant no interference.
With regard to the benefit of the first proviso, the tenant has failed to specify any vacant room in the exclusive possession of the landlord.
So also, with regard to the benefit of the second proviso, the burden is on the tenant to prove both the limbs of the second proviso viz. mainly depending on the income from the petition schedule building for his livelihood and with regard to non-availability of other buildings in the locality to accommodate his business. The authorities noticed that no material has been produced by the tenant to substantiate the claim. Any omission on the part of the authorities to consider material evidence could be brought to our notice. The benefit of the second proviso was rightly declined by the authorities.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed that six months time may be granted to vacate the building in question. However considering the dilapidated condition of the building as noticed above and also the fact that the rent control petition is of the year 2019 we are inclined to grant only a period of two months. This shall be subject to the condition that the tenant shall, within a period of one week from today, file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court undertaking to vacate the premises unconditionally within the said period of two months. The tenant shall also continue to pay the monthly rent payable, without any default. In case of failure to comply with either of the directions as above, the tenant will not be entitled to the benefit granted and shall be liable to be evicted forthwith.
Rent Control Petition is dismissed as above.