IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 29 of 2004()
1. P.M. MAJEEB, 6/1250, INDIAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ALLEPPEY SARVODAYA SANGHOM,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER, ALLEPPEY SARVODAYA SANGHOM,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.SANTHARAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/10/2008
O R D E R
P.R.Raman &
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.C.R. No.29 of 2004
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008.
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This revision is filed by the landlord, aggrieved by the judgment
rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside an order of
eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The short facts leading to the
dispute are the following:
2. The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to ‘the
Act’). He purchased the property by virtue of document No.574/1996 of
the Sub Registry, Kochi. The tenant is a co-operative society. Subsequent
to the purchase, they have attorned to the landlord. The landlord contended
that he bonafide requires the premises for his own occupation, i.e. for
running a video shop. He was already running a video shop in a rented
premises and the landlord of the said premises demanded vacant possession
of it and hence he has to shift the same to the petition schedule building.
The tenant denied the bonafide need pleaded and specifically contended that
the landlord is not running a video shop and the alleged landlord of the said
RCR 29/2004 -2-
room has not demanded any vacant possession of the premises. He has also
other buildings for starting his business.
3. The Appellate Authority disallowed eviction on the specific
finding that there is no evidence to show that the landlord is conducting a
video shop in a rented premises. It was also found that the evidence
adduced by him in support of the plea are totally insufficient to hold that
the landlord was conducting any business as pleaded by him. It is on this
ground the petition was dismissed.
4. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and Exts.A1
and A2 and C1 Commission report were marked on the side of the landlord.
C.P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined on the side of the tenants and they have
produced Exts.B1 to B3 series, B4 and B5.
5. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner which was relied upon to
prove that the landlord is conducting a business in running a video shop.
The Rent Control Court straight away accepted the report of the
Commissioner to find that the landlord is doing business in a rented
premises. There is no detailed discussion of the facts and evidence of the
case, in the order. It was merely observed that the claim put forward by
the petitioner deserves consideration and it is found that the petitioner is in
need of the petition schedule room for his business by shifting it from the
rented premises now occupied by him. The specific objection raised by the
RCR 29/2004 -3-
tenant that the landlord is not doing any business, was not properly
considered.
6. A reading of the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority
shows that the entire evidence has been discussed in detail. Going by
Ext.C1 report, the landlord is conducting business in a shop room bearing
No.14/2088 situated at Chullikkal Road, Chullikkal. The Commissioner
was shown a lease deed 1.11.1995 executed between the wife of the
petitioner and one Shri V.T. Velayudhan Pillai. Another lease deed is of the
year 1999 which is executed between the landlord and the wife of Shri
Velayudhan Pillai. But no documents have been annexed along with the
report of the Commissioner or produced in evidence before the Rent
Control Court to show that he is doing business in a rented premises. The
Appellate Authority found that if, as a matter of fact, the landlord was doing
some business actually, he will be having documents regarding the payment
of licence fee, receipt for payment of rent and registration of the shop under
the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, etc. He did not produce the
lease deed before the court to prove that he is the tenant of building
No.14/2088. Even in Ext.A1 lawyer notice issued by the landlord, he did
not mention the door number of the premises at which he is alleged to be
conducting his business. The same is the case of the petition for eviction
filed before the Rent Control Court also. In these circumstances, it was
RCR 29/2004 -4-
concluded by the Appellate Authority that the pleading regarding the place
of business now being conducted by the landlord is vague. The non-
production of any documents to support the plea was also relied upon
against him. Thus, the landlord failed to prove that he is conducting
video business in a rented premises.
7. Even though these findings have been challenged in this revision
petition, we are of the view that the findings rendered by the Appellate
Authority are based on clear analysis of the pleadings and evidence. Merely
by showing two lease deeds to the Advocate Commissioner, the landlord
wanted to establish that he is doing business in a rented building. Those
documents have been withheld from producing before the court. The fact
that he has not shown any door number in Ext.A1 notice and in the Rent
Control Petition shows that the pleadings are only vague. Actually, the
bonafide requirement pleaded is to shift the said business. In the proof
affidavit also the details regarding the building number of the rented
premises, commencement of the tenancy, etc. are not stated. The name and
address of his landlord is also not there. None of the rent receipts have been
produced. In the cross-examination various questions have been put
challenging his claim. Apart from that, the oral evidence of the landlord
also shows that his brother-in-law Shri Usman was looking after all affairs
of the petition schedule building. Thus, it is a case where there is total
RCR 29/2004 -5-
failure on the part of the landlord to prove that he had been conducting a
video shop in a rented premises. The landlord of the said building has also
not been examined. Therefore, all these indicate clearly that the bonafide
need pleaded has not been established in a cogent and convincing manner.
Thus, rightly it was found that the ground under Section 11(3) has not been
established. We are of the view that the evidence, as analysed by the
Appellate Authority, does not support the plea of the landlord. The view
taken is a plausible one and cannot be said to be perverse. In exercise of the
powers of revision, we cannot substitute our own views to that of the
Appellate Authority. The landlord can approach the court with better
particulars and cogent evidence to establish his bonafide need, if so advised.
For all these reasons, the revision petition is dismissed.
( P.R.Raman, Judge.)
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/