The judgment establishes the principles of bona fide need of the landlord, entitlement to protection under provisos to Sec. 11(3) of the Act, and the grounds for eviction under Sec. 11(4)(v) of the Act.

ORDER :

C.S. Dias, J.

1. The revision petitioner was the appellant in RCA No. 179/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (in short 'Appellate Authority'), Thalassery. The respondent in this revision petition was the respondent in the above appeal.

2. This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court, Kannur, in RCP No. 190/2010. The parties are for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their litigate status in the Rent Control Petition (RCP) as 'petitioner' and 'respondent'.

3. The petitioner had filed the RCP against the respondent, inter alia, pleading as follows: The petition schedule building (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'building') is owned by the petitioner. She had leased out the building to the respondent on 28.2.1994 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. It was after the building was leased out to the respondent that she purchased the absolute right over the building. The respondent attorned to the ownership. However, since August, 2009, the respondent has kept the rent in arrears, without any reason. The respondent has also ceased to occupy the building for more than a year. The respondent is not opening the building even for cleaning. The long and continuous closure of the building has caused damage to the building and has diminished its value and utility. Though the petitioner had earlier filed RCP 136/2001, the same was dismissed, which order was confirmed in RCA 61/2003. Now the petitioner's son has completed his studies, and he bona fide requires the building to conduct a business in photo framing and glass painting. The building is suitable for his business. The petitioner's son is dependent on her. The respondent is not interested in doing any business in the building. There are other vacant buildings in the locality suitable for the respondent to carry on his business. Hence, the petitioner prayed for an order of eviction under Secs. 11(2)(a)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).

4. The RCP was resisted by the respondent, who filed a counter statement, inter alia, pleading as follows: The landlord and tenant relationship is admitted. The respondent has paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as security. The landlord who had assured to return the amount, has till date not returned the amount. The respondent has paid rent up to September 2009 through Court. Thereafter, even though he tendered the rent, the petitioner has willfully refused to accept the same. The respondent has not ceased to occupy the building as alleged in the RCP. The building is being used by the respondent for the purpose of godown of his textile items. The respondent is purchasing second quality textile goods from manufacturers and agents from different parts of the Country. These goods are stored in the building. The building is situated in a locality which is known for textile business. The respondent has not damaged the building or diminished its value as alleged in the RCP. The bona fide need raised by the petitioner is only a ruse to evict the respondent from the building. The petitioner's son is still studying in Bangalore. He has no intention to start such a petty business. The petitioner and her husband are well known builders in Kannur, and that they have several other buildings in their possession. As the building is being used as a godown, the respondent does not normally open the building from dawn to desk. The petitioner is not doing periodical maintenance for the building, which is the sole reason that the building is not in a good condition. The respondent had issued a lawyer notice to the petitioner to restore the amenities. Subsequently, he also filed an application before the Accommodation Controller. Hence, the RCP may be dismissed.

5. The husband and son of the petitioner were examined as PWs 1 and 2. The Advocate Commissioner who prepared Ext C