ABOOBACKER Vs. NANU
LAWS(KER)-2001-8-51
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on August 24,2001

ABOOBACKER Appellant
VERSUS
NANU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GURBACHAN SINGH VS. SHIVALAK RUBBER INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGAM VS. RAO SAHEB [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

LAKSHMI VS. LABBAH KUNJU AMEER HAMSA [LAWS(KER)-2005-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE T.I. VS. K.L. STANLEY [LAWS(KER)-2013-8-164] [REFERRED TO]
G REGHUNATHAN VS. K V VARGHESE [LAWS(SC)-2005-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
G REGHUNATHAN VS. K V VARGHESE [LAWS(KER)-2003-12-9] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision is filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 83 of 1989. Petitioners in R.C.P. No. 124 of 1985 are the petitioners in this revision petition. The Rent Control Petition was filed under S.11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act.
(2.)There are two petitioners in the R.C.P. The bona fide need alleged was that the first petitioner was doing business in Bombay on the road side. The Bombay Corporation has prohibited such vending and hence, he has to come back to Thalassery and he wants to start a business in the room occupied by the respondent. Further contention was that the respondent / tenant is conducting a cycle shop in the room. But he is using it in such a way that there is diminution in its value and utility. It is on the above allegation that the petition was filed.
(3.)The tenant filed objection in which it is stated that the bona fide need alleged is not true. Petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers. According to the tenant both of them were doing business at Bombay and the business is being conducted even now. According to him, the arrangement between petitioners 1 and 2 is that when one of them returns to home, the other should look after the business. It was further contended that notice was issued by the petitioners. There was mediation by merchants association. There the petitioners wanted only an increase in the rent. The tenant was willing to increase the monthly rent by Rs. 60/-. But the landlords wanted it at Rs. 80/-. The tenant further contended that the landlords have got another building in which they can do business. The other contention was that he is earning for his livelihood in the business conducted. So far as the ground under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act is concerned, the tenant contended that he has not committed any waste in the building. The cement on the floor has developed cracks due to non maintenance. So also the plaster on the walls was worn out. It was further contended by the tenant that the R.C.P. was filed nearly 1 1/2 years after the issue of notice. This itself will show that there is no bona fides in filing the petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.