IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 RCRev..No. 204 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.76/2001 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT/RCAA, TRIVANDRUM RCP.3/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT/RCC,VARKALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER:APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABDUL HAQ, S/O. NOOR MOHAMMED, PAZHAVILA VEEDU, PALLICKAL DESOM, PALLICKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/: PETITIONER: ------------------------ RIYAS, S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, SHAJI BUILDING, PALLICKAL DESOM, PALLICKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14 /03 /2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCR 204/2005 ORDER ON IA 1558/2005 DISMISSED. 14.3.2008. SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.C.R. NO. 204 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th March, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner and the landlord is the respondent. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The building belonged to the father of the landlord. According to him, he got it in family partition. The rent was remaining unpaid from 1.12.1996 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. Even after the issuance of the statutory notice, no rent was paid. The landlord is an educated unemployed young man. He wants to start a business in readymade garments in the petition schedule room, to eke out a living. There are no suitable rooms available with him for starting the business. The tenant is not depending on the income from the scheduled room. He is a very affluent man. There are other rooms in the locality also RCR 204/2005 2 for shifting his business. 3. The tenant resisted the petition, contending that the rate of rate is only Rs.300/- per month. The rent is in arrears only from 1.1.1997. The bona fide need stated in the Rent Control Petition is urged without any basis. The landlord is running another business in the name and style “Thankam Stores” in another building. He has got another room in his possession in the upstairs of the petition schedule building. The tenant is depending on the income from the scheduled room for his livelihood. There are no rooms available in the locality. The Rent Controller raised the necessary issues. From the part of the landlord Exts.A1 to A8 series were marked and Pws.1 to 5 were examined. From the side of the tenant, Exts.B1 to B0 were marked and CPWs. 1 to 3 were examined. As third party exhibits, Exts.X1 to X4 were marked. The Rent Controller allowed the petition under Sections 11(2)(b) as well as 11(3) of the Act. It was found that the rate of rent is Rs.300/- per month and the same is remaining arrears from 1.12.1996. The bona fide need of the landlord was found to be genuine, based on the evidence tendered by him. Though there was a room in the upstair portion of the petition scheduled building, the same will not be suitable for the proposed business of the landlord. There was no access to the upstair room from the front portion. The staircase in the rear portion RCR 204/2005 3 of the building has to be used for reaching that room. Therefore, it was found that the tenant is not entitled to get the protection of the first proviso to Section 11(3). Concerning the first limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3), it was found that the tenant is a very affluent person having extensive landed properties and he is also running a brick manufacturing unit. Therefore, it was found that the tenant is not depending on the income from the tenanted room for his livelihood. The claim under the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) was also found against the tenant. It was found that there were rooms available in the locality, if the tenant wanted to shift his business. In the result, the R.C.P was allowed. The appellate authority affirmed the above findings. Hence this revision. 4. Heard. We notice that regarding the arrears of rent, the revision petitioner has got no serious dispute to the finding of the Rent Controller. The rate of rent pleaded by the tenant was accepted by both the authorities and the tenant has admitted that the rent is remaining in arrears from 1.1.1997. So, the dispute of the tenant relates only to the arrear of rent for one month. Since both the authorities found that the tenant has defaulted to pay the rent from 1.12.1996, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into this trivial dispute. 5. We notice that both the authorities upheld the claim of the landlord RCR 204/2005 4 that he requires the scheduled room for starting a business, to eke out a living. The evidence of the landlord was supported by his mother, when she was in the box. Their evidence remain unshattered. Therefore, the authorities below rightly found that the bone fide need urged by the landlord is genuine. We find no reason to interfere with the said concurrent finding of fact. We also notice that the room in the possession of the landlord in the first floor was rightly held to be not suitable for any business, as there is no access to it from the front side. Only based on the materials on record, it was found that the tenant is a very affluent person and his principal business is the running of a brick manufacturing unit. When the tenant was in the box, specific question was put to him regarding the availability of rooms in the locality. He was not able to tell that there were no rooms available in the locality. He said that rooms were available at a distance of 100 metres. So, the finding of the courts below that rooms are available in the locality, is also a finding of fact, which has to be upheld. We find that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the findings of the authorities below rendered under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. We agree RCR 204/2005 5 with their reasons and conclusions. In the result, the R.C.R fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/