IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 40 of 2011()
1. THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS (I) BOOTH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RADHAKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.PANDURANGA BHAT,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :24/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 40 OF 2011
------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
Balakrishnan, J.
The tenant is the revision petitioner. The petition schedule
building is used by the tenant as the Booth Office of Congress
(I), Kasaragod. The landlord contends that he bona fide needs
the petition schedule building for his own occupation. The
building is stated to be one of the three rooms in a larger
building. It is stated that the landlord is at present staying at
Sooratkal, in Karnataka State. The landlord contends that he
has no other building of his own in his possession in Kasaragod
where the petition schedule building is situated.
2. The rent control petition was mainly resisted by the
revision petitioner/tenant contending that out of the three
rooms one room fell vacant and that has not been occupied by
the landlord so far. It is also contended that the petition
schedule building is situated in a non residential area and it was
actually used for non residential purpose and as such it is
RCR.No.40/2011 2
unsuitable for residential occupation of the landlord.
3. The learned Rent Controller accepted the evidence given
by PW1, the landlord, to hold that the need projected is bona
fide. The tenant preferred appeal. In appeal the Appellate
Authority also concurred with the view taken by the Rent
Controller. Since the tenant is using the petition schedule
building as a party office, it is not entitled to get benefit of the
second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act.
4. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner
Sri.Jayakumar submits that the petition schedule building is
situated in a non residential area and the building lacks basic
amenities such as water supply, electricity, etc. and as such it is
unsuitable for residential occupation. That cannot be a reason to
disallow the claim of the landlord since the landlord can effect
alterations and modifications and also do whatever is required
to have facilities for his residential occupation. The other ground
that one room which fell vacant was not occupied also may not
be a reason to show malafides since the claim made by the
landlord is to occupy the entire building consisting of three rooms
for residential occupation. It may not be possible for the landlord
RCR.No.40/2011 3
to occupy one of the rooms when other two rooms are
occupied one as party office and the other doing business. If
only all the three rooms are obtained vacant possession, the
landlord can make alternations or modifications to suit his
convenience. There is no evidence to show that the landlord is
having any other building in his possession in the same town or
locality so as to negative the claim under the first proviso to
section 11 (3) of the Act. Since the concurrent finding entered by
the two authorities are founded on legal evidence, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the
courts below. As such this revision petition is dismissed.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk