IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023/26TH MAGHA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 23 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 20/2013 OF RENT CONTROLLER,IRINJALAKUDA RCA 97/2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA)

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

ROSILY AGED 53 YEARS W/O.VALIKODATH THAKKOLKKARAN THOMAS, ASHTAMICHIRA DESOM, VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT S.N.NAGAR, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH.

BY ADVS.

SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA SHRI.SREEKUMAR S SMT.REMYA RATNAM P.R RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 TO 5/PETITIONERS 1 & 3:

1 SAKKER HUSSAIN AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.BEERAKUNJI HAJI @ BEERAN HAJI, ERATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE, DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 680 589.

2 MUHAMMED RAFI AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.BEERAKUNJI HAJI @ BEERAN HAJI, ERATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE, DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 680 589.

3 MUHAMMED SHABIL AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED LATHEEF @

ABDUL LATHEEF, ERATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 680 589.

4 MUHAMMED SHAHSIN (MINOR)

AGED 13 YEARS, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED LATHEEF @

ABDUL LATHEEF,ERATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE AND DESOM, 680 589, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SAKKEER HUSSAIN, 1ST RESPONDENT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)

SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2023, THE COURT ON 15.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.B SURESHKUMAR &

SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.

-------------------------------------------

Rent Control Revision No.23 of 2019 -------------------------------------------

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2023

O R D E R

Sophy Thomas, J.

The revision petitioner, who is the tenant in RCP No.20 of

2013 on the file of Rent Control Court, Irinjalakuda, is before us, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The brief facts necessary for the revision could be stated as follows, referring the parties according to their status in the Rent Control Petition.

3. The petitioners/landlords filed RCP No.20 of 2013, for evicting the respondent/tenant under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. According to the petitioners, the respondent defaulted rent from 04.02.2013 onwards, and moreover, they were in need of the petition schedule room along with adjacent rooms which were also leased out by them, for starting a supermarket cum godown.

4. The respondent/tenant opposed that petition contending that, the rent was never in arrears, and the need projected by them that they wanted to start a supermarket in the rooms including the petition schedule room, was not bonafide. The 1^st petitioner is working in a company and petitioners 2 and 3 are doing some business. So, they may not be able to run a supermarket, and moreover, they are financially well off, and so they need not start a new business to make money. The petitioners recently got two rooms, back from the tenants, and if they wanted to start a supermarket, they could very well use those rooms. The respondent/tenant is solely depending on the income derived from the business in the petition schedule room and no suitable rooms are available in that locality to shift her business. So, she prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control Petition.

5. RCP No.20 of 2013 was tried along with connected RCPs filed by the very same landlords, for getting vacant possession of the adjoining tenements, for starting a supermarket.

6. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A32 were marked from the side of the petitioners/landlords and RWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked from the side of the respondent/tenant. Ext.C1 was marked as court exhibit.

7. After evaluating the facts an