IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 RCRev..No. 25 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.7/2006 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM RCP.11/2000 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- J.VIJAYAN, KALLAKODI VEEDU, KANJIRACODE, MULAVANA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT : RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- JOSEPH JOY, CHEMPAKASSERI KIZHAKKATHIL, KANJIRACODE, KUNDARA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND WIFE DOLLY GRACE, CHEMPAKASSERI KIZHAKKATHIL, KANJIRACODE, KUNDARA. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.NO.25 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J: Tenant is the revision petitioner. Landlord is the respondent. The R.C.P was filed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as the Act). The Rent Controller allowed the application on both the above grounds. The tenant appealed. The appellate authority reversed the finding under 11(2)(b) but, affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller under Section 11(3). Hence, this revision challenging the appellate order to the extent it is against the tenant. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner attacked the finding of the authorities below regarding the bonafide need of the landlord. He also attacked their finding under the second proviso to Section 11(3). As per the pleadings of the landlord, he was running a stationary shop before he went to Gulf and after RCR.25/2008 . 2 termination of his employment in the Gulf, he returned. At present he is doing the business of giving vehicles on rent. He owns three vehicles. As income from the said business is not sufficient, he wants to increase his income by starting the stationary business. He has three children. He has to meet their educational expenses also. He has got the capacity and experience to run a stationary business in the petition scheduled building and, therefore, his need is bonafide. The tenant contented that as the landlord is affluent, he need not start a new business in the petition scheduled building. Both the authorities overruled the contentions of the tenant and upheld the claim of the landlord. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us the same contentions which the tenant raised before the court below. Even assuming the landlord is affluent and he has other sources of income, nothing prevents him from starting a new business. The claim of an affluent landlord to start one more business cannot be described as not a bonafide requirement. Accordingly, we reject the contentions of the petitioner in this regard as untenable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also attacked the findings of the courts below under the 1st and 2nd limbs of the 2nd RCR.25/2008 . 3 proviso to Section 11(3). We notice that, in the cross examination of the tenant, it was suggested by the landlord that he is having a chitty business and also a business of money lending. But, he denied those suggestions. The courts below noticed that the tenant failed to prove what was the income derived from the tenanted premises. In the absence of any proof regarding income of the petitioner placed before the courts below, the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority declined to accept the claim of the tenant that he has no other income. We think, this is a plausible view on the facts with which we cannot interfere under Section 20 of the Act. 4. The learned counsel also vehemently attacked the finding of the courts below that the tenant failed to prove that there are no suitable rooms available in the locality to shift his business. We went through the deposition of the tenant, who was examined as RW1. Existence of several rooms in different shopping complexes were put to the tenant. In most of those cases, his answer was that he does not know anything about them. So, the appellate authority as well as the Rent Controller held that the tenant failed to prove that no suitable rooms are available in the RCR.25/2008 . 4 locality to shift his business. The said finding was arrived at taking note of the legal position that it is for the tenant to prove that no suitable rooms are available in the locality. The negative answer given by the tenant in cross examination cannot be taken as a proof of non-availability of suitable rooms in the locality. We are of the view that the conclusion of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority on the 2nd limb of the 2nd proviso is also a plausible view on the facts, with which we cannot interfere under Section 20. In the result, the Rent Control Revision fails and it is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to vacate the petition schedule building. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is running a business there, he is granted six months' time from today to vacate the tenanted premises on condition that he files an unconditional undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to vacate the scheduled building within six months from today. He shall file the undertaking within three weeks from today. He shall pay the arrears of rent, if any, and also pay the rent from RCR.25/2008 . 5 time to time till the building is vacated. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl