The tenant must prove dependency on the rent-controlled property to gain protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act against eviction for arrears and bona fide need of landlords.

O R D E R

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

The tenant in R.C.P.No.110 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner herein. The rent control petition was filed by the respondents who are the landlords of the building, seeking eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter called as 'the Act' for short. The case of the petitioners in the rent control petition was that the petitioners' predecessor Madathilthodi Kunheebi who died on 11.1.1978, was the owner of the petition schedule building. After her death, the petitioners became the owners of the property. Abdul Latheef, one of the children of Kunheebi also died and his legal representatives are petitioners 4 to 7. The revision petitioner took the building on a monthly rent of Rs.550/- from Abdul Latheef. The rent was kept in arrears from 1.1.1007. Though notice was issued on several occasions, he did not pay the arrears of rent. The second petitioner wants to start a business in hardwares and paints in the petition schedule building and in the neighbouring rooms in the possession of Abdul Nazar and the room in the top floor. They have no other building in their possession for that purpose. Though one RCR No.343/2015 2 tenant Raju had given vacant possession of the top floor room before his death, at the instance of the respondent and others after the notice issued by the petitioners, the legal heirs of Raju started to occupy the room illegally. The petition schedule building and the neighbouring rooms are ideal and suitable for starting the proposed business. The respondent is having other properties and other income and he is not depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building for his livelihood and there are other buildings available in the locality to shift his business as well. So, the petitioners have no other option but to approach the rent control court by filing a petition for eviction.

2. The tenant/revision petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter statement denying the allegations in the petition. According to the tenant, one of the legal heirs of the landlord sold his share in the property to one Prabhakaran and without his junction, the application is not maintainable. Further, according to him, the rent of the building is only Rs.150/- and not Rs.550/- as claimed by the petitioners. The rent sent by money order was refused and so he is not responsible for the arrears of rent. He is prepared to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.150/- since July, 2007. The allegation that the second petitioner RCR No.343/2015 3 requires the petition schedule building for starting a business is not correct. He has no intention to start a business. The attempt is only to evict the revision petitioner and to let out the petition schedule building to others for higher rent. Further, he is conducting a tailoring shop in the petition schedule building and eking out his livelihood from the income derived from the business conducted. So, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3. The second petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioners. The respondent was examined as R.W.1 and Exts.B1 to B12 series were marked on his side. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked subject to objection as according to the petitioners in the lower court, they were fabricated documents.

4. After considering the evidence on record the rent control court found that the rent of the building is only Rs.150/- and not Rs.550/- as claimed by the petitioners/landlords and the rent was kept in arrears. The court below also found that Prabhakaran had not acquired any right in the petition schedule building and the assignment relates to other two shop rooms and not in respect of the petition schedule building and as such junction of Prabhakaran is not necessary for maintaining an action for eviction in respect of the petition schedule RCR No.343/2015 4