O R D E R

AMIT RAWAL (J)

This order shall dispose of two RCRs, Nos.281/2018 and 290/2018, in R.C.A Nos.29/2016 and 30/2016 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram against the concurrent findings of fact and law whereby, the petitioners/tenants have been ordered to be evicted from shops referred to in the scheduled property.

2. The respondents/landlords instituted R.C.P No.76/2012 against a set of six tenants seeking eviction under various grounds.

1. Bonafide need

2. Under provisions of Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and

11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’).

3. The aforementioned provisions of law provided eviction on the ground of bonafide need and reconstruction of the building. It was mentioned that the shops in occupation of the tenants are required by the petitioners for running the business of their own whereas the different tenants have been occupying the shops in the schedule property referred as ‘A’ on different dates. Prior to the institution of the petition, the requisite legal notices were sent which were duly replied by few of the tenants. The petitioners/tenants appeared through different counsels and raised objections qua maintainability of the petition by challenging the bonafide need and other grounds. Since the parties were at variance, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues in RCR No.281/2018:

“1.Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11 (2) (b) of the Act?

2. Whether the petitioner bonafide needs the petition schedule building for own occupation?

3. Whether the petitioner has any other building in the same locality?

4. Whether the tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on such building?

5.Whether any other suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to carry on his business?

6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (iv) of the Act?”

4. On perusal of the aforementioned issues, it is evident that issue with regard to the maintainability of the eviction petitions, as raised in the written statement, was not pressed or sought to be recasted at any stage of the trial or before the Appellate Court.

5. In support of the respective stands, respondents/landlord examined himself as PW1 whereas, the six tenants were examined themselves as CPW1 to CPW6. The respondents/landlord in support of the petition brought on record the documents, which reads as under:

A1 18/04/11 Certified copy of the Sale Deed No.1322/11 A2 05/07/12 Letter from State Public Information Officer A3 10/05/12 Copy of the Revision Petition 40/2012 A4& 27/08/12 Plan & Building permit A4(a)

A5 02/03/15 Statement of account A6 series 04/08/10 Term Deposit Advice (3 Nos.)

A7 23/08/12 Lawyer's notice A7(a) 23/08/12 Lawyer's notice A7(b) 23/08/12 Lawyer's notice A7(c) 23/08/12 Lawyer's notice A7(d) 23/08/12 Lawyer's notice A7(e) 23/08/12 Lawyer's notice A8, A9 & Unclaimed posts (3 nos)

A10 A11 05/10/12 Reply notice A11(a) 05/10/12 Reply notice A12 12/09/11 Deed of Power of Attorney A13 31/01/13 Certified copy of Sale Deed No.430/13 A14 07/02/14 Certified Copy of Deed No.674/14 On the other hand the tenants did not produce any document on record, but Court Exhibits are:

C1 & C1(a) 31/10/14 Commission Report & Report from Expert Engineer X1 Authorisation letter X2 27/08/12 Copy of plan, building permit & Permit Register

6. On analysis of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition and ordered the eviction of the tenants under the provisions of Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Rent Act. 7. Out of six tenants, four had vacated and only two appeals were preferred before the lower Appellate Authority. The Lower Appellate Authority on examination of rival contentions and materials on record upheld the findings of the Rent Controller. All the other tenants accepted th