The court upheld the eviction and rent enhancement based on the bonafide need projection and commercial importance of the locality, while also emphasizing the non-fatal nature of non-disclosure of possession and distinguishing previous decisions on fair rent fixation.

ORDER :

K. Harilal, J.

The revision petitioner, is the tenant/respondent in R.C.P.No.155/2014 of the Rent Control Court-I, Kozhikode. He is confronting with an order of eviction passed concurrently by the courts below under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) and also an order fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.900/- per month under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965.

2. The respondents/petitioners filed the Rent control petition on the ground that the rent was in arrears from 01.10.2013. It is averred in the rent control petition that the husband of the second petitioner bonafide needs the petition schedule building for starting a hardware shop. The revision petitioner/respondent has subsequently acquired possession of another room in the same locality and he is doing business therein, after the commencement of present tenancy. Considering the commercial importance of the locality, the present rent @ Rs.650/-per month is very low. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of the rent to Rs.4,000/- per month. Thus according to the respondents/petitioners, they are entitled to get an order of eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act and enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month.

3. The revision petitioner/respondent resisted the prayer for eviction on all the aforesaid grounds. As regards Sections 11(2)(b), revision petitioner/respondent contended that though he has tendered the rent by money order, the petitioners refused to accept the same. As regards the claim for eviction under Section 11(3), it was contended that the need projected in the petition is not bonafide and the respondents/petitioners have another building of their own for the occupation of 2nd respondents' husband. So also, he is entitled to get a protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. As regards the claim for eviction under Section 11(4) (iii), it is contended that, though he had acquired possession of another shop room, which is situated just opposite to the petition shop room, after the commencement of the present tenancy, that room was taken on lease by the respondent for the purpose of his brother, who is conducting business therein and he is the licencee of the aforesaid shop room. As regard the claim for enhancement and fixation of fair rent, it is contended that the present rent is fair and just, no interference is warranted and the respondents/petitioners are not entitled to get enhanced rent @ 4,000/- per month.

4. On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the courts below concurrently found that the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) is bonafide and the revision petitioner/respondent is not entitled to get protection under the proviso to Section 11(3) and that the revision petitioner/respondent has subsequently acquired possession of another building and that the rent was in arrears from 01.10.2013. Further, the rent control court enhanced the existing rent to Rs. 900/- per month from Rs. 650/-, on a finding that the present rent is very low in view of the parameters laid down by this Court in Edger Ferus vs. Abraham Ittycheria [2004 (1) KLT 767]. Aggrieved by the orders of the courts below, the revision petitioner approached this Court with the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the respondents/petitioners have suppressed the vacant possession of another room, in the rent control petition and it has come out in evidence that, at the time of filing the rent control petition, the 2nd respondent/2nd petitioner has another building of her own in her possession to start the proposed business for her husband. But, the courts below have failed to consider the said evidence on record under the first proviso to Section 11(3) in its correct perspective.

7. Going by the impugned judgment, it could be se