Non-examination of landlord fatal to establishing bona fide need, power-of-attorney not competent to establish landlord's need, denial of title without bona fides.

Bhaskaran, J.

These Rent Control Revisions are filed against the common judgment of the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha, in R.C.A.Nos.20, 37, 38, 40, 41 & 442 of 2001. There were six Rent control Petitions filed by the same landlord against six separate tenants. The tenants were in occupation of a line building in Alappuzha Town. The landlord sought eviction of the buildings on the ground of arrears of rent as against the respondents in R.C.P.Nos.20, 22 and 25 of 1997. He also sought eviction on the ground of bona fide need for occupation against all the respondents. The parties are here-in-after referred to according to their status in the Rent Control Petitions.

2. The Rent Control Petitions were filed stating that the 10 rooms having Municipal Numbers AMCW.19/496 to 503 and 485 and 517 belonged to the landlord as per partition deed No.2465/1987 of S.R.O., Alappuzha. For the purpose of disposal of these revisions, it is not necessary to state the facts of each case the facts are more or less similar. All the Rent Control Petitions are filed by the landlord through his power-of-attorney, Chandresh T. Lodhaya, Sunder Nivas, C.C.N.B. Road, Alappuzha. In R.C.P.No.20 of 1997, the landlord contended that the tenant had taken the room on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- and the rent was defaulted from December, 1994 onwards. The notice terminating the tenancy was sent on 14-5-1996. The petitioner is a bona fide need of the petition schedule shop room with other rooms for putting up a residence for him after renovation. He is residing with his brother Chandresh. The counter-petitioner has approached the landlord after receipt of notice and requested for time to vacate the room. But he did not vacate the premises and the Rent Control Petition was filed. There is vacant land on the back side of the petition schedule building. For the better enjoyment of the land, there is no convenient passage. Hence the western most 3 rooms bearing Nos.493, 494 and 495 have to be demolished. The petitioner has obtained necessary sanction from the Local Authority to demolish the other rooms for his use. The petitioner is having financial capacity to meet the expenses for the renovation.

3. In the objections filed, the tenants contended that Chandresh Lodhya has no right to file the Rent Control Petition on behalf of the landlord. The petitioner is not the landlord of the properties. In R.C.P.No.20 of 1997, it was contended that the rate of rent claimed in the petition is not correct. The counter-petitioner is a Kudikidappukaran in the plaint schedule building. It will fetch a monthly rent of Rs.3/- only. There was no agreement to surrender and the counter-petitioner has sent a reply stating the true and correct facts. There is no arrears of rent as alleged in the petition. There is no bona fide need for the petitioner. He has another residence in Alappuzha and other buildings in other places. He is not residing with his brother Chandresh. The allegation that at present there is no convenient passage for going to the backside of the petition schedule building is not correct. The petition schedule building is not liable to be demolished. The Local Authority did not grant any sanction. The petitioner has no plan and licence to reconstruct or renovate the building. The petitioner has no ability or financial capacity for the renovation. The petitioner has other buildings of his own in Alappuzha. The contentions in the other Rent Control Petitions are also same except with regard to the rent claimed in respect of each building.

4. The Rent Control Court found that as per Ext.A22 power-of-attorney executed by the landlord PW.1 has got every authority to file the petition seeking eviction. The Rent Control Court also found that all the respondents are in possession of the respective rooms under the same landlord on tenancy arrangement and that the petitioner has got the right of the landlord as per Ext.A4 partition deed of 1987. The R