Affluence of the landlord is irrelevant to determine bona fide needs for eviction; tenants must substantiate their claims of hardship.

O R D E R

C.S.Sudha, J.

These R.C.Rs. filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease &

Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) are against the common judgment dated 17/07/2017 in R.C.A.Nos. 9/2012, 10/2013, 3/2014, 4/2014, 5/2014 and 12/2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Pathanamthitta. R.C.R.Nos.405/2017, 406/2017, 407/2017, 408/2017, 409/2017 and 410/2017 have been filed by the petitioner-landlady in the R.C.Ps. filed before the Rent Control Court (RCC), Adoor. R.C.R.Nos.97/2018, 102/2018, 107/2018 and 183 of 2018 have been filed by the various respondents-tenants in the R.C.Ps. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.Ps.

2. The petitioner-landlady filed six R.C.Ps, namely, R.C.P.Nos.7/2011, 8/2011, 9/2011, 11/2011, 12/2011 and 15/2011 claiming eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of a multi storeyed building by name Apsara Tourist Home. The petition schedule rooms in the R.C.Ps are situated in the ground floor of the aforesaid three storeyed building. The petitioner obtained title over the property by virtue of sale deed no.108/2010 of Adoor Sub Registrar Office. The respondents-tenants have taken the room on rent from the previous owner. The petitioner duly informed the tenants of the purchase of the building and thereafter they have attorned to her. The petitioner's husband is an Engineer conducting a Construction Company in the Sultanate of Oman. The petitioner and her husband intends to start a hotel business in the three storeyed building housing the schedule rooms. Presently, there is no sufficient vehicle parking space for the building. So petitioner intends to convert the ground floor of the building as a parking space and the other rooms for restaurant and lodging facility. There are no suitable buildings or rooms in the possession of the petitioner to start the hotel business. Hence the respondents were requested to vacate the room. However, they have not vacated the room so far and hence the R.C.Ps.

3. The respondent-tenants in the R.C.Ps entered appearance and contested the matter. They filed separate objections in the respective R.C.Ps, the gist of which is that, initially the building had only one floor and five rooms in the ground floor. The tenants had given substantial amounts as security to the earlier landlord of the building and that it was using their funds he had constructed the present three storeyed building. The rooms were taken on rent years back and when substantial sums were given as security, the then landlord had assured the tenants that they would not be evicted as long as the building stands. Hence the respondents are entitled to permanent tenancy. The need put forward was denied by the tenants, which according to them, lacked bonafides and that it was a mere ruse for eviction. The petitioner's husband is a business tycoon and therefore they have no intention to start the proposed business in the building. The upper floors of the building comprising of small rooms is designed to run a lodge and therefore it is impossible to convert it into a hotel. Like wise, the ground floor cannot be converted into a parking space by retaining the upper floors. If the rooms in the ground floor are demolished, the building itself would collapse. They also claimed the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3).

4. R.C.P.Nos. 7/2011, 8/2011 and 15/2011 were tried jointly and disposed of by a common judgment dated 31/10/2013. R.C.P.Nos. 9/2011, 11/2011 and 12/2011 were tried separately and disposed of by judgments dated 04/01/2013, 28/06/2013 and 25/09/2012 respectively. The RCC on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found the need to be bona fide; that the tenants had failed to prove both the limbs of the second proviso to Section 11(3) and hence granted eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenants took up the matter in appeal as R.C.A.Nos. 9/2012, 10/2013, 3/2014, 4/2014,