IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1509 of 2001(H)
1. M.R. NANDAGOPAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. CAR CHOICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :07/02/2007
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ.
==============================
C.R.P.NO. 1509 OF 2001
============================
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2007
ORDER
Udayabhanu,J.
The revision petitioner is the landlord/petitioner who was
non suited from both the courts below. He had sought for
getting the premises evicted under Section 11(3) of the Kerala
Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965){for
short `the Act’} for the bona fide need to start business in the
sale of spare parts and fittings of motor vehicles. The petitioner
is a diploma holder in automobile engineering. He was
employed in the service of Government of Kerala and was
retired sometime back. The premises was rented out to the
respondents on 23-3-1994 on a rental of Rs.910/- per month for
a period of two years and thereafter at Rs.1090/- per month and
the total period of lease is to be three years. (the lease deed was
not produced). It is the case of the petitioner/landlord that the
particular room has got an entrance at the back side and hence
CRP.1509/2001 -2-
ingress and egress from the shop room to his house that is
situated on the rear side of the building is possible. The petition
schedule room was constructed with the above facility with the
idea of starting a business for himself. It was let out to the
respondents as he was having certain financial tightness at a
time on account of the reconstruction of the building in which the
petition schedule shop room is situated. The respondents are
running a firm by name Car Choice in the premises. They had
agreed to vacate the room after three years. Moreover they
have spoiled the relationship in between him also, as they
started conducting repair works of the vehicles etc.during the
night time and the request of the petitioner to stop the same was
not heeded to, resulting in disturbance to sleep to him and
family. A lawyer notice was also sent in this regard. According
to him, he is not having sufficient earnings and also wanted to
spent his time for an income generating purpose and hence the
proceedings initiated.
2. The respondents contended that the only motive of the
petitioner is to let out the premises for a higher rent and also to
amass a huge premium. The understanding alleged that the
CRP.1509/2001 -3-
premises shall be vacated after three years is stoutly denied. It
is pointed out that Rs. One lakh was paid as premium and that
they have spent about more than Rs. 3 lakhs in the business. It
is pointed out that the rest of the seven rooms in the building
also, the same condition of three years is mentioned in the
lease deeds. The respondents have also brought to the notice of
the court the antecedents of the petitioner in this regard that he
sought eviction of one Chellappan in 1986 vide R.C.P.No.1/1986
for the same purpose, i.e.for starting an automobile workshop
for the petitioner and electronics business for his son. The
petitioner retired in the year 1987. Subsequent to the eviction
the above shop room, the building was reconstructed and after
reconstruction one room was given to Chellappan as eviction
was also sought under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The above
tenant was again sought to be evicted in 1995 alleging bona
fide need for his wife to start a telephone booth, S.T.D.,
photostat, milk booth etc. But after getting vacant possession
the particular room was let out to one P.P.Santhoshkumar on
10-5-1996. The petitioner and his wife were employed and both
of them are getting a fabulous amount by way of pension. His
CRP.1509/2001 -4-
children are well employed. Thus were the contentions of the
tenants.
3. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority
dismissed the application of the petitioner as it was found that
the petitioner has let out the shop room in the same building to
one Santhoshkumar after getting vacant possession of the same
in pursuance of R.C.P.No.89/1995 on a higher rental of R.1080/-
and also accepting security of R.50,000/-. It was brought out in
the evidence that the landlord was entertaining the desire to
start a business since long, but yet after getting vacant
possession of the premises occupied by Chellappan, he let out the
same to Santhoshkumar and thereafter initiated the present
proceedings. It was also found that the version of PW1, the
petitioner that the above room is only a stair case room and the
area of the same is only 80 sq.ft.and the same is not suitable for
the proposed business is incorrect. The admission brought out in
the cross examination of PW1 itself belied the above contention
as PW1 admitted that the above room has got an extent of 150
sq.ft. This was in answer to the suggestion that the above room
has got an area of 165 sq.ft. But PW1 asserted that the extent is
CRP.1509/2001 -5-
only 150 sq.ft. Further more, the petitioner did not make any
endeavour to adduce any objective evidence in the matter, by
taking out a commission etc. although the above contention was
raised by the respondent in the counter statement filed in the
R.C.P.itself. We find that the above aspect that appears very
much prominent in evidence and the above stands unexplained
at the instance of the petitioner. The entire case set up by the
landlord stands virtually demolished on account of the above
fact brought out. Hence, we find that the petitioner has failed
to establish the bona fides of the need set up and we find that
the decision of the courts below in this regard cannot be said to
be improper, irregular or illegal. We find no reason to allow the
revision petition.
4. All the same it has to be noted that the rent has
remained static for the last more than 10 years. We find the
rent is liable to be enhanced. The rent would stand raised
tentatively to Rs.2500/- per month from today onwards until the
petitioner/landlord initiates appropriate proceedings for the
enhancement of rent. The respondents/tenants shall be liable to
pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month to the petitioner
CRP.1509/2001 -6-
from today onwards until the same is refixed in the appropriate
proceedings. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
ks. TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGE
CRP.1509/2001 -7-
K.A.ABDDUL GAFOOR
&
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JJ
C.R.P.NO.1509 OF 2001
ORDER
DATE: