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. 40 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.12/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD RCP.20/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER IN RCR/APPELLANT IN RCA/RESPONDENT IN RCP ------------------------------- THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS (I) BOOTH OFFICE, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ASHOKA, S/O.MADHAVA, MERCHANT, RESIDING IN ANANGOOR, KASARAGOD KASBA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT(S) IN RCR/RESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP: --------------- RADHAKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.PANDURANGA BHAT, LANDHOLDER, MADHYA PADAVU, SURATHKAL, P.O.KATIPALLA, MANGALORE TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE-575 014. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 40 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The petition schedule building is used by the tenant as the Booth Office of Congress (I), Kasaragod. The landlord contends that he bona fide needs the petition schedule building for his own occupation. The building is stated to be one of the three rooms in a larger building. It is stated that the landlord is at present staying at Sooratkal, in Karnataka State. The landlord contends that he has no other building of his own in his possession in Kasaragod where the petition schedule building is situated. 2. The rent control petition was mainly resisted by the revision petitioner/tenant contending that out of the three rooms one room fell vacant and that has not been occupied by the landlord so far. It is also contended that the petition schedule building is situated in a non residential area and it was actually used for non residential purpose and as such it is RCR.No.40/2011 2 unsuitable for residential occupation of the landlord. 3. The learned Rent Controller accepted the evidence given by PW1, the landlord, to hold that the need projected is bona fide. The tenant preferred appeal. In appeal the Appellate Authority also concurred with the view taken by the Rent Controller. Since the tenant is using the petition schedule building as a party office, it is not entitled to get benefit of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act. 4. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.Jayakumar submits that the petition schedule building is situated in a non residential area and the building lacks basic amenities such as water supply, electricity, etc. and as such it is unsuitable for residential occupation. That cannot be a reason to disallow the claim of the landlord since the landlord can effect alterations and modifications and also do whatever is required to have facilities for his residential occupation. The other ground that one room which fell vacant was not occupied also may not be a reason to show malafides since the claim made by the landlord is to occupy the entire building consisting of three rooms for residential occupation. It may not be possible for the landlord RCR.No.40/2011 3 to occupy one of the rooms when other two rooms are occupied one as party office and the other doing business. If only all the three rooms are obtained vacant possession, the landlord can make alternations or modifications to suit his convenience. There is no evidence to show that the landlord is having any other building in his possession in the same town or locality so as to negative the claim under the first proviso to section 11 (3) of the Act. Since the concurrent finding entered by the two authorities are founded on legal evidence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the courts below. As such this revision petition is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk