IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 334 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.10/2009 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE, AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.67/2005 of PRL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- RAJAGOPAL,S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 45 YEARS,PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE VADUTHALA DESOM,CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------ P.V. KRISHNAN, S/O.LATE VENKITESWARA RAO, AGED 72, PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA DESOM, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT NO - 13 1ST MAIN ROAD, ITI LAYOUT, VIDYAPETTA, BANGALORE-85 BY ADV. MR. K.V.JAYACHANDRAN MR. RAJU V.MATHEW MS. R.REMA MENON THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.334 of 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of January 2011 O R D E R N.K.Balakrishnan, J. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord contended that he bonafide needs the petition schedule building for enabling his youngest son Umesh to start medical transcription activity. It is further averred by the landlord that he and his wife also like to join their son Umesh in having that trade carried on in the petition schedule building. Umesh has acquired the required qualification in Medical Transcription Course and has gained experience by conducting that trade in Bangalore. The landlord is aged 77 years and so he wants to settle down here and for that purpose he intended to carry on a trade in the petition R.C.R. No.334 of 2010 -: 2 :- schedule building. 2. The tenant opposed the claim contending that the need urged is only a ruse for eviction and that Umesh for whom the building is sought to be evicted is not a dependent on the landlord. Further it is contended that Umesh is in an affluent situation, drawing fabulous amount as salary or income by the trade conducted in Bangalore and as such he does not require to come to Vaduthala in Ernakulam to conduct medical transcription activities. 3. The learned Rent Control Court rejected the claim made by the landlord. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority found that the need urged by the landlord is true and genuine and hence passed order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the need projected by the landlord is only a pretext for eviction. It is pointed out that the landlord herein is the only person who did not sell the property whereas his brothers had already sold their respective shares obtained by R.C.R. No.334 of 2010 -: 3 :- them in the partition deed. The learned counsel further submits that this building could not be sold by the respondent only because it is occupied by the revision petitioner. 5. The contention that Umesh, the youngest son of the landlord is not a dependent on the landlord cannot be sustained in view of the fact that admittedly, Umesh is not having any other building of his own in Ernakulam to start the trade as stated in the petition. Dependency does not mean financial dependency alone. Since the son depends on his father for getting a building for starting a trade or business, it has to be said that he is depending on the father, the landlord. 6. The other argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the only idea of the landlord is to transfer the property after getting it vacated. That plea according to the landlord is fallacious. When the landlord was examined as PW1 it was suggested that the idea is only to sell the property. But it was emphatically denied by him. The learned counsel for the landlord stated that the landlord is even ready to suffer an order of injunction R.C.R. No.334 of 2010 -: 4 :- restraining him from alienating the property. That will clearly show that the landlord has no intention to sell the property after he gets possession of the petition schedule building. That apart, if the landlord transfers the property, the tenant can approach the learned Rent Control Court under Section 11(12) of the Act. The contention that Umesh is now getting good amount as salary or otherwise by conducting business at Bangalore and so it is not necessary for him to come down Ernakulam is unacceptable. If the landlord needs the building for the purpose as aforesaid and if his son intends to join the father in conducting such trade or business it cannot be said that there is any oblique motive in it. The learned Appellate Authority has scanned the evidence and has come to the right conclusion that the need urged by the landlord is true. It is seen to be a honest and genuine need. This revision is hence dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that as his two daughters are studying, sufficient time may be granted to vacate the premises. We notice that the R.C.R. No.334 of 2010 -: 5 :- rent that has been paid by the tenant now is only Rs.100/- per month. Considering the fact that the rent being paid is too low, we propose to enhance the rent at Rs.250/- per month. We are inclined to grant time till 31.1.2012 on the following conditions :- The tenant shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today undertaking to surrender the petition schedule building to the landlord on or before 31.1.2012 and further undertaking that he will pay the occupation charges at the rate of Rs.250/- per month with effect from 1.2.2011. It is made clear that the tenant will get the benefit of time granted above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings contained therein. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt