The tenant's burden to prove alternative vacant premises exists necessitates the landlord to present special reasons for non-occupation, as per the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. Heard Mr.Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, Caveator.

2. A very well-reasoned order passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority has been assailed in this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the said decision on the ground that both the courts below have misconstrued the evidence with regard to the need of the tenant. The learned counsel has referred to the proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 to show that in the event a tenant is able to establish that the tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from his business carried on such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry out such business, an order of eviction cannot be passed.

3. We have carefully read the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Both the courts, on examination of all the documentary evidence, have arrived at a definite finding that the suit property is not the only source of income for the tenant. Inasmuch as, there was an evidence suggesting that there are suitable buildings in the locality for the revision petitioner to carry out her business. This fact was also not disputed by the revision petitioner.

4. However, the learned counsel has referred to the first proviso to Sec.11(3) to contend that the landlord is in possession of another building of his own in the same city, the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction for eviction on the ground of own occupation unless it is satisfied that for special reasons to be recorded, it is just and proper to do so in the particular facts of the case.

5. The Rent Control Court, in paragraph No.23, has relied upon Ext.X6 and arrived at a finding that, in the instant case, both PW1 and PW2 have justified their intention to start a spare parts shop along with a lathe-cum-workshop and that they can conveniently and effectively utilise the petition schedule room and the remaining space of the building for commencing their respective businesses. Once the requirement is established by the landlord and in the absence of any vacant room available, as rightly pointed out by the Rent Control Court, the tenant has no right to dictate the landlord to carry on the proposed business in the remaining portion of the building. Both the witnesses have stated the special reason for seeking possession of the petition scheduled room, which the trial court as well as the learned Munsiff have found to be special reason. In this regard, the Rent Control Court has relied upon the lack of pleadings with respect to availability of vacant rooms sufficient for the landlord to carry on the proposed business. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of this Court in Vasantha Mallan v. N.S.Aboobaker and Siddiq , 2020 (1) KHC 21 and Dineshan Pillai P.B. v. Joseph @ Jose, 2019 (3) KHC 206 . Insofar as the test to be applied for special reason the Rent Control Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in Vinod v. KK.Mujeeb, 2018 (2) KHC 837.

6. The findings of the Rent Control Court in this regard are reproduced below :

“’23. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has got vacant building in her possession. To prove that the respondent had examined RW4 and Ext X6 was marked. In Ext X6 it is mentioned that Petitioner has 4 buildings in her possession. In Ext. X6 it is shown that Building Nos. 24/931, 24/9