IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 405 of 2006()
1. KAKKATTU ANDIKUTTY @ SOMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHANGALAVALAPIL PRABHAKARAN,
... Respondent
2. DIVAKARAN, AGED 57 YEARS,
3. RADHAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS,
4. RAVINDRAN,
5. MALATHIAMMA,
6. CHANGALAVALAPPIL BHASKARAN,
7. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
8. UMADEVI, AGED 44 YEARS,
9. GOWRI,
10. PUSHPA,
11. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.NIRMAL. S
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :06/12/2006
O R D E R
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ
-------------------------------------------------------
R.C.Rev. NO. 405 OF 2006
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of December 2006
ORDER
Udayabhanu, J
The Revision Petitioner is the tenant who has been evicted
as per order of the Rent Control Act in R.C.P. 72/98 after the
appeal and revision taken over the order of the Rent Control
Court were dismissed. The case of the petitioner is that the
respondents/landlords have violated section 11(12) as they did
not occupy the premises within one month as envisaged. Vacant
possession was obtained on 29.09.2002. The courts below
concurrently found that the landlords have furnished sufficient
reasons for non occupation, as contemplated under section 11
(12). The premises got evicted for starting a business of repairing
of fridges and air conditioners. R11, the son of the first petitioner
had to start the air conditioning and refrigeration repair business
and it was proposed that R7 would assist in running the business.
During the pendency of the RCA, the first respondent, to whom
R.C. Rev. No. 405 of 2006 2
the property belonged, died and hence concurrence of the rest of
the co-owners was required for really starting the business. In
the meantime R11 got employment in government and hence R7
being a deaf and dumb person is incapable to start the business
in the repair of refrigerators and air conditioners. Hence, the
business of selling of firewood and other materials that can be
done by a deaf and dumb person was intended to be started in
the premises. Application for licence were filed. It is also pointed
out that for last 20 years the petitioner/tenant was conducting an
automobile workshop in the petition schedule premises and the
premises were in need of elaborate repairs. The schedule
premises was found locked with some laterite stones and sand
stocked inside the building which has been noted by the
Commissioner when he inspected on 26.03.2003. The courts
below found that the above circumstances provided sufficient
reasons as contemplated under section 11(12) for non
occupation.
On the second inspection of the Commissioner it was found
that the R7 is conducting business in firewood, bricks and tiles in
R.C. Rev. No. 405 of 2006 3
the premises. It has also to be noted that the bona fide need
arose in 1998, and the RCP was filed and vacant possession was
obtained only on 29.09.2002 i.e., after more than 4 years. We
find that the contention of the petitioner/tenant that the courts
below has gone wrong in the above finding cannot be upheld. We
find that the orders of the courts below are supported by
sufficient reasons and there is no ground to interfere. The
revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR, JUDGE
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.
RV
R.C. Rev. No. 405 of 2006 4