The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing arrears of rent and bona fide need for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and highlights the burden of proof on both the landlord and the tenant in eviction cases.

Mary Joseph, J.

1. Petitioner in R.C.P. No. 16/2008 on the files of Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff Court-I, Kozhikode is before us in this revision. The respondent herein is the respondent therein. Parties to this revision are referred to hereinafter as ‘the landlady and tenant’ for convenience.

2. Eviction was sought by the landlady in respect of the tenanted premises which is a building taken by the respondent, who was the tenant, as per rent deed No.2447/83 for the purpose of conducting a radio repairing shop. The rent originally fixed was Rs.75/-, which was enhanced to Rs.115/- from 1.5.1994 and to Rs.140/- from 1.5.1997 and to Rs.165/- from 1.1.2001 and that is prevalent as on date. The contention of the landlady was that the tenant paid rent up to December 2003 and thereafter, it was defaulted. It is also her contention that her husband having been retired from Central Government Service is now left without any avocation or income and some stationery shop is necessarily to be started with and he needs a vacant space for the purpose to be accomplished.

3. The landlady caused a lawyer notice to be served upon the tenant demanding arrears of rent and vacant surrender of petition scheduled room. It is contended that on receipt of the notice, a money order was sent by the tenant and that was adjusted by her towards the rent from 2004 to February 2006. According to her, the tenant did not surrender the tenanted premises and it was in the said circumstances that R.C.P. No. 16/2008 was preferred before the Rent Control Court projecting grounds of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’).

4. The tenant filed counter statement in the R.C.P. The landlord tenant relationship, interest and rate of rent were not disputed. Admittedly, rent was in arrears only from 2007 and not from the date as alleged by the revision petitioner. According to him, rent was paid directly to the husband of the landlady and also deposited in the account maintained by the landlady with Chelannur Service Co-operative Bank by way of daily deposit. Receipt was issued from January 2004 till April 2005 and issuance of receipt was declined thereafter and a demand for enhancement of rent to Rs.500/- was made. Thereafter rent was also paid for the period of from May 2005 till 2007 by way of Money Order. Accordingly, it was contended that rent was not in arrears as claimed by the landlady.

5. It is also contended that bonafides are not there in the need projected by the landlady that her husband desires to start a stationery shop. According to him, rent was sought to be enhanced to Rs.500/- and therefore, the bona fide need projected can only be taken as a ruse to evict him. Taking specific contentions as to availability of vacant rooms with the landlady, non-availability of any room in the locality or neighbourhood to shift his business and his dependency mainly on the income from the business run in the tenanted premises as his source of livelihood, the tenant sought protection from an order of eviction under the first and second proviso to Section 11(3).

6. The landlady and the tenant let in oral evidence as PW1 and RW1. Exts.A1 to A3 and Exts.B1 to B9 are the documentary evidence brought on record respectively by the revision petitioner and the respondent.

7. The Rent Control Court appreciated and evaluated the arguments advanced by either parties in the backdrop of the evidence aforesaid and found no substance in the claim for eviction on the grounds projected under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act and accordingly, dismissed the R.C.P. and declined an order of eviction in favour of the landlady.

8. The defeated landlady took the matter in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority as R.C.A.No.166/2008 and the appellate authority concurred with the finding of the Rent Control Act and thereby dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Cou