IMPORTANT POINT
The death of a landlord does not negate the bona fide need for eviction under the Rent Control Act, and the tenant must prove any claims against eviction.

ORDER :

(P. Krishna Kumar, J.)

In this revision petition, the tenant challenges the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the respondent-landlord is entitled to get vacant possession of the petition-scheduled building as per Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’, for short). By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of dismissal of the eviction petition by the Rent Control Court.

2. One G.Sethumadhavan, the father of the respondents, rented out the tenanted premises to the petitioner for a monthly rent for conducting a Printing press. Alleging that the petitioner defaulted payment of rent from June 2012 onwards, late G.Sethumadhavan filed the eviction petition with a further contention that his son Ganesan (respondent No.2) and his grandson Nikhil, who are his dependents, have the experience and expertise to run a Cotton Textile business and thus he bonafide required the vacant possession of the petition-scheduled building for starting such a business therein by Ganesan and Nikhil. It was further pleaded that he had no other vacant building in his possession to start the proposed business. Sethumadhavan passed away while the matter was pending and then the present respondents were impleaded as supplemental petitioners.

3. The petitioner did not dispute the landlord- tenant relationship. But he resisted the eviction petition by contending that G.Sethumadhavan had bequeathed the petition-scheduled building to the third respondent and not to the second respondent Ganesan, which would indicate that the need put forward by him was only a ruse for eviction, as otherwise, he would have bequeathed the said building to Ganesan and Nikhil. The petitioner further contended that he is wholly depending on the income derived from the business run in the scheduled building for his livelihood and there are no suitable vacant buildings in the nearby locality to shift his business.

4. Accepting the contentions of the petitioner herein, the Rent Control Court dismissed the eviction petition by holding that, had Sethumadhavan bonafide intended to facilitate Ganesan and Nikhil to start a business of textiles in the scheduled shop room, he would have bequeathed the said portion of his assets to them, instead of earmarking it to the third respondent. The Rent Control Court further found that the respondents suppressed the deed of Will presumably for the reason that had it been produced, it would have disproved the claim that the landlords have no other vacant buildings.

5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the said finding after an elaborate discussion of factual and legal aspects, by holding that the need projected by the original landlord still subsists despite his death and the same is genuine.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.

7. We perused the trial court records. After considering the records before us, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority. The contention that if the landlord had any bonafide in setting up a claim that he required the scheduled building for accommodating his son Ganesan and grandson Nikhil, he would have bequeathed the petition-scheduled building to them, seems to be fallacious. The purpose for bequeathing a property to one is entirely different from permitting another to run a business in it. The former is done with an intention to give that property perpetually to the legatee and the latter is for ensuring that another person can eke his livelihood out of the same for the time being. There can be an oral understanding between the donor, legatee and the other person to whom the donor initially intended to deliver the vacant possession of the building. Such an arrangement may be in the best interest of the donee and the other person depending upon the skill of one among them to run the proposed business. T