IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 RCRev..No. 179 of 2007() ------------------------ RCA.7/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR RCP.12/2004 of MUNSIFF'S/RENT CONTROL COURT,ALUVA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- MATHEW ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, AYURKULANGARA, THRIKKAKARA DESOM, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, TILLERY ROAD, KANNOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, TILLERY ROAD, KANNOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, SREEPADAM, KOCHI - 16. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.C.R. NO. 179 OF 2007-D ----------------------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The landlord is the revision petitioner. The respondents are the tenant and its officers. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Rent Controller allowed the application on both the grounds. But, the appellate authority reversed the finding under Section 11(3) of the Act. Hence this revision. 2. The finding under Section 11(2) was found in favour of the landlord by both the authorities and the tenant has not taken up the matter in revision. Therefore, in this case, we are concerned only with the validity of the finding of the appellate authority under Section 11(3). The case of the landlord was that he was a P.W.D contractor. Before that he was working in the Gulf. Now, he is not keeping good health and therefore, he stopped the contract business. He has got sufficient means to start a private finance RCR 179/2007 2 business. Therefore, he required the tenanted premises. It is a bona fide requirement and on that ground he sought eviction. 3. The respondents resisted the application, contending that the need urged is only a ruse to get eviction. The Rent Controller relying on Exts.A7 to A9 series documents, found that the landlord's claim is genuine. Ext.A7 is a Medical Certificate showing that the landlord is not keeping good health. Exts.A8 and A9 series are the copies of income tax clearance certificates and income tax returns filed by the landlord. The Advocate Commissioner also reported in Ext.C1 report that the petition schedule shop room has sufficient space for the conduct of the private finance business. He has also reported that the said room is ideal for the said business. P.W1 in his deposition, has given evidence in accordance with his pleadings in the Rent Control Petition. So, the Rent Controller relying on the testimony of P.W.1 and also on Exts.A8 and A9 series, held that the claim made under Section 11(3) is genuine. 4. The appellate authority, on the other hand, relied on Exts.A8, A9 and A9(a), to non-suit the landlord. It was noticed, relying on those documents that he has an income of Rs.1,14,260/- for the year 2002-03 and during the year 2004-05, his income increased to Rs.2,40,540/-. So, the claim of the landlord that he stopped the contract business, was disbelieved RCR 179/2007 3 by the appellate authority. It was held that the landlord is not only continuing in the contract business, but his income is increasing year by year. So, the R.C.P filed on 25.5.2004 was held to be pursued without any bona fide need, since the landlord is already continuing a business. In the result, the finding of the Rent Controller under Section 11(3) was reversed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the appellate authority mis-read the evidence. The return filed for the assessment year 2004-05 relates to the financial year 2002-03. Similarly, the return for the assessment year 2002-03 will relate to the previous year. The appellate authority failed to understand the distinction between assessment year and financial year, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that even assuming the revision petitioner has stopped the contract business, still he will continue to receive amounts from the pending bills. Normally, for the works done for the P.W.D., there will be considerable delay in paying the bills, it is pointed out. So, the learned counsel submits that the finding of the appellate authority is illegal and improper. 6. We feel that there is considerable force in the submission of the revision petitioner. Even if the petitioner stops his contract business, he will continue to receive some income for a further period of 2/3 years. Further, the income shown for the assessment year 2004-05 relates to the RCR 179/2007 4 financial year 2003-04. Therefore, the finding of the appellate authority that the landlord has income even after he stopped the business and it was increasing year by year, is untenable. Further, even if the petitioner receives some amount from the pending bills, the same will not show that he is continuing the contract business. In view of the above position, we are of the view that the finding of the appellate authority is illegal and improper. The continued income received by the revision petitioner from the contract business, even after he stopped it, will not act as a bar in his claiming eviction of the scheduled building for starting a new business. In the result, the R.C.R is allowed. The judgment of the appellate authority in R.C.A. No.7/2006 is reversed and the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.P.No.12/2004 is restored. No costs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. Nm/