IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

TH MONDAY, THE 8 DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946 RCREV. NO. 175 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2014 IN RCA NO.49 OF 2013 OF SPE/CBI- II & 4 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

29.06.2013 IN RCP NO.52 OF 2012 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM (RENT CONTROL)

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

SHINI SHAJI W/O.SHAJI,PLAKKIL HOUSE,KANAYANNUR,CHOTTANIKKARA.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SMT.M.SANTHY SRI.K.VINODKUMAR 70789 RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

LIZZY IYJU AGED 52 YEARS W/O IYJU,RESIDING AT KAITHAKULANGARA HOUSE,KANAYANNUR,CHOTTANIKKARA.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682312.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.AMAR RAGH SRI.A.R.ASSIM SRI.BENOY JOSEPH SMT.N.S.HASNA MOL SRI.N.MANEESH SRI.RAJEEV RAJADHANI SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL SRI.A.S.SREEJAN SHIBU JOSEPH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Amit Rawal, J.

Present rent control revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the fact and law rendered by the rent controller in rent control petition bearing No.52 of 2012 and rent appeal bearing no RCA No.49 of 2013 of the Appellate Authority whereby the eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered on the ground of bonafide need as provided under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965 from scheduled property consisting of a shop.

2. Succinctly, the facts, in brief, for adjudication of the revision petition are summarized as under:

3. The petitioner is a tenant in the premises called scheduled building and had been carrying on the business on a rent at the rate of Rs.1200/-. The rent control petition was filed by landlord on 10.4.2012 seeking eviction on their ground of the bonafide necessity as his son had passed B.TEch degree in computer engineering and wanted to set up a business in the shop situated on the ground floor in a building consisting of two floors ie., ground floor and first floor. The petitioner, tenant refuted allegation on the ground that the respondent has another building which was emphatically denied. The petitioner, tenant also alleged that the respondent, landlord had not approached the rent control court with clean hands for not disclosing the other vacant rooms lying on the ground floor and the first floor, therefore, there was no compliance of the provisions under Section 11(3) of the 1965 Act. Since the parties were at variance, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:

1. Whether Rent Control Petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable for the reason that she is only a co-owner? 2. Whether the need for own occupation of the petition schedule building alleged by the petitioner is bonafide?

3. Whether the petitioner is in possession of any other buildings of her own in the same city, town or village and if so, whether the special reason stated by her is satisfactory? 4. Whether the respondent is depending for her livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business being carried on in the petition schedule building? 5. Whether any other suitable buildings are available in the locality for carrying on the business of the respondent? 6. Whether the petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction u/s. 11 (3) of the Act?

7. Relief and costs?

4. In support of the aforementioned pleadings, examined the following witnesses ie., PW1 – Lissy Iyju, landlady, PW2 – John Iyju, her son, RW1 – Shini Shaji, tenant, RW2 – Shilpa K.K, Local Commissioner in OS No.360 of 2012, RW3 – Johny K. John, brother in law of the landlady.

5. The learned Rent Controller on analysis of the evidence and the testimony of the RW3, the brother in law noticed that the respondent, landlord and RW3 are the co-owners of the buildings and the ground floor of the building is in the ownership of the l