IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 46 of 2007()
1. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O. KANNAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.M.SUDHEER KUMAR, S/O. K.K.MADHAVAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
For Respondent :SRI.K.C.CHARLES
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :17/08/2007
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.C.Rev. No. 46 of 2007 - B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 17th day of August, 2007
ORDER
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
Tenant is the revision petitioner and the landlord is the respondent.
2. The landlord sought eviction under section 11(8) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the Act). The petition
schedule room is one of the three rooms in the ground floor of a two
storied building. The two other rooms in the ground floor on the two sides
of the tenanted room is occupied by the landlord and his wife respectively.
The landlord is running the business of STD Booth, typewriting, photostat,
ammonia printing, fax etc. The door number of the tenanted premises is
32/2422. The landlord’s room bears door No. 32/2423 and the room
occupied by his wife is No.32/2421. The landlord’s wife is running a
tailoring shop in the room. According to the landlord, he wants to expand
the business by opening an internet cafe in the room occupied by the
tenant and therefore an application was filed under sec.11(8) of the Act
before the Rent Controller. The tenant resisted the application contending
that the need urged for expansion of the business is unfounded. The
monthly rent of the room was Rs.800/-. The landlord wanted to enhance it
to Rs.1500/- per month. The tenant did not oblige. The tenant moved the
president of the Kerala Merchants’ Association for settlement of the
dispute. But their conciliatory efforts did not yield any results. So the
R.C.Rev.No.46/2007 Page numbers
landlord thereafter filed the Rent Control Petition seeking eviction which is
not supported by any bona fides.
3. Before the Rent Controller, from the side of the landlord PWs.1
and 2 were examined. From the side of the tenant, RWs.1 to 5 were
examined. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked from the side of the landlord.
Exts.C1, C1(a), X1 and X2 were also marked.
4. After hearing both sides the Rent Controller dismissed the
application. The same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority also. The
landlord filed Rent Control Revision No.302/2005. This court by order
dated 5.6.2006 allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the
Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the matter. After remand,
from the side of the landlord, Exts.A17 to A20 and from the side of the
tenant, Exts.B1 to B6 were marked. After hearing both sides, the
Appellate Authority allowed the prayer of the landlord for eviction under
sec.11(8). This revision is filed challenging the said judgment of the
Appellate Authority, by the tenant.
5. The main point canvassed by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner was that there was sufficient space available in the
existing room in the possession of the landlord and therefore additional
space is unnecessary for expanding the business. The learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out that the commissioner visited the room of the
landlord without notice to the tenant. The landlord packed the room with
R.C.Rev.No.46/2007 Page numbers
old typewriters, fax machines etc. so that the commissioner would report
that there is lack of space for expanding the business. Though this point
was asserted by the tenant in the box and also highlighted in the cross-
examination of the commissioner, the Appellate Authority failed to advert
to the above aspect. Thus the Appellate Authority misread the evidence
of the commissioner and the tenant on this point, it is submitted.
6. It is a fact that the commissioner has reported that almost all the
space in the landlord’s room was occupied by the STD booth, fax machine,
photostat machine, typewriter etc. So it was found by the Appellate
Authority that there was no sufficient space for the expansion of the
business. But we feel that even assuming that there was some space, the
need put forward by the landlord for an additional room for starting an
internet cafe is a bona fide need. It may not be possible to conveniently
run an internet cafe in the existing room in which various gadgets are
there. So, if the landlord feels that a room itself is necessary for running
the internet cafe, the same can be considered only as a bona fide
requirement. Further, the contention of the tenant that the Rent Control
Petition was filed only for the reason of his failure to pay the enhanced
rent is also dealt with by the Appellate Authority. It was held that even
assuming that there was a demand for enhancement of rent and as it was
not given, the landlord thought that the room can be put to better use so
that he can get better earnings, it cannot be said that there was no bona
R.C.Rev.No.46/2007 Page numbers
fide need for seeking eviction. We think that the said view expressed by
the Appellate Authority is also a plausible view on the facts. The Appellate
Authority is the final court on facts. Going by the materials produced in
this case, the view taken by the Appellate Authority regarding the bona fide
need of the landlord for one additional room for starting a new internet cafe
is a reasonable view taken on facts with which we cannot interfere under
section 20 of the Act.
In the result the revision petition fails and it is dismissed.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGE
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
JUDGE.
mt/