IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 165 of 2009()
1. VAYAVALAPPIL RASHEEDA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. OTHAYOTH MUHAMMED ALI,S/O.MOOSA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.BABU
For Respondent :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :25/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
R.C.R.No. 165 of 2009-E
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011.
O R D E R
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The landlady is in revision. She challenges the order of the
Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the
Rent Control Court declining eviction on the ground of arrears
of rent and bonafide need for own occupation invoked by her in
the RCP. As for the ground of arrears of rent, the demand for
rent arrears was made on the basis of a Clause in the rent chit to
the effect that rent will stand enhanced by 10% every year. The
statutory authorities have concurrently found that the above
Clause cannot be implemented, as the rent chit in question is
an unregistered one. The view of the statutory authorities in the
above context cannot be said to be wrong. We therefore approve
action of the statutory authorities in having declined the
R.C.R.165/09 2
eviction which was sought on the ground of arrears of rent.
2. We will now consider whether there is any reason to
interfere with the order declining eviction on the ground of
bonafide need for own occupation. The need projected by the
landlady was that the building is required for occupation by her
husband Khalid so that he can conduct hardware business.
Sri.Khalid himself gave evidence as P.W.1. It came out
from his testimony that the need which he projected in the R.C.P.
was conceived by him in 1996, the time when he returned for
good from the gulf country where he was working thitherto. It
came out further in evidence that in 2000 the petition schedule
building fell vacant and the same was let out to the
respondent. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate
Authority have concurrently noticed the above circumstance as
one indicating absence of bonafides. Even though, Mr.P.Babu,
learned counsel for the appellant addressed strenuously, we are
not persuaded to hold that the view concurrently taken by the
R.C.R.165/09 3
statutory authorities regarding the genuineness of the need is
erroneous. The revision necessarily will have to fail.
3. But we notice another aspect of the matter. The
building is situated in a commercially important area at
Pazhayangadi very close to Pazhayangadi Bus stop. The rent of
Rs.1200/- presently being paid by the respondent is far below
the rent the building may fetch if the same is let out today. Hence
we refix the rent payable by the respondent at Rs.2,400/- per
mensem with effect from 01.2.2011. If either party is aggrieved,
it is open to them to apply to the Rent Control Court under S.5
for regular fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is so fixed, the
respondent shall pay rent @Rs.2,400/- per mensem.
4. The RCP is dismissed by refixing the rent at Rs.2,400/-
per mensem. We make it clear that this judgment will not
preclude the revision petitioner from initiating fresh
proceedings for eviction on all grounds presently available to
R.C.R.165/09 4
the landlord including the ground under S.11(3) on the basis
of change in circumstances.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
rka