IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 RCRev..No. 85 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.30/2005 of DISTRICT COURTR.C.A.A.,, KASARAGOD RCP.6/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF/R.C.C., KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------- THE SECRETARY, V.VASU,MARXIST COMMUNIST PARTY LOCAL COMMITTEE KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DISRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.C.S.SAJI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------- K.M.SALI,S/O.LATE KHADER HAJI KHADEEJA MANZIL, KOIPADY VILLAGE KUMBLA P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.C.R. NO. 85 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 27th March, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner and the landlord is the respondent. The landlord wanted the petition schedule room and also another room in the occupation of another tenant for his son, who is a Plus One student. His son is poor in his studies and he is more interested in business. He wants to start a business in chappals. For that one room is required for the sales and another room is required for storing the goods. So, R.C.P. No.6/2005 was filed against the revision petitioner herein and R.C.P.No.5/2005 was filed against the other tenant. The grounds taken against the revision petitioner were under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred as the “Act”). According to the landlord, the rent was in arrears eversince he purchased the building. According to him, the Area Committee of C.P.I. (M) is functioning in another building in the very same RCR 85/2008 2 locality. The revision petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Local Committee of the very same political party can shift to that building. Therefore, the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) was also urged, because the other building belongs to the very same party, though owned by a higher Committee. The Rent Controller allowed the applications on all the three grounds. On appeal, the appellate authority upheld the said findings. Hence this revision. 2. The revision petitioner mainly challenged the findings under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. According to him, the landlord's son, who was examined as P.W.2, is only an inexperienced student. Therefore, it is inherently improbable that he will run any business. It is also submitted that two more rooms were available with the landlord. But, the landlord put up a plea that he requires those rooms for the expansion of his business and separate claim is made for the scheduled room on behalf of his son. The said claim lacks bona fides. If the son wants to start any business, the landlord could have allowed him to start the business in the two rooms, which he got in the recent past. Therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the finding that the claim made on behalf of P.W.2 by the landlord is bona fide, is perverse and so, is liable to be reversed. RCR 85/2008 3 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also attacked the finding under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The building in the locality belongs to the Area Committee of the party. The tenant is the Secretary of the Local Committee of the party and therefore, the tenant does not have any room in its possession. So, the provisions of Section 11(4)(iii) are not attracted, it is submitted. 4. We notice that if the rooms, which are now available with the landlord, are to be used for the expansion of his business, the same cannot be said to be irregular. Based on the evidence on record, it could be seen that those two rooms were already used for the expansion of his business. The landlord's son PW2 may be an inexperienced person. He may succeed or fail in his business. It is the concern of the landlord and his son. The tenant cannot dictate that since there is likelihood of the business proposed to be started by the landlord's son being unsuccessful, he should not start any business. The tenant also cannot dictate that PW2 should start his business in the premises already available with the landlord. Going by the decisions of this Court, it is for the landlord to decide how he should regulate his affairs. If he wants two rooms, including the room occupied by the revision petitioner, so that his son can start the business, the same cannot be said to be irregular or improper. It has to be held as a bona fide RCR 85/2008 4 claim. Since the tenant is a political party, it cannot claim the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). Therefore, we affirm the finding of the courts below under Section 11(3) of the Act. 5. Technically, there is a point in what the learned counsel urged against the finding under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The different units of the party may be separate entities for the purpose of running the office, accounting, etc. So, an office in the possession of the Area Committee cannot be treated as an office in the possession of a Local Committee. But, even assuming the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) is not available, still the revision petitioner is liable to vacate the petition schedule room, in the light of our finding under Section 11(3) of the Act. In the result, the Rent Control Revision fails and it is dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed for six months' time to vacate the scheduled room. If the revision petitioner files an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit withdrawing all his contentions and undertaking to vacate the premises within six months from today, before the execution court, the execution court shall not proceed with the execution for a period of six months from today. The undertaking in this regard shall be filed within three weeks from today. The arrears of rent, if any, shall be cleared within one month from today and the rent due from RCR 85/2008 5 time to time shall also be paid, till the room is vacated. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/