IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 165 of 2009() ------------------------------------ RCA.125/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.22/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------- VAYAVALAPPIL RASHEEDA, AGED 39 YEARS,D/O.ABDURAHIMAN,EZHOME AMSOM, ERIPURAM-CHENGAL DESOM,P.O.PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHAYOTH MUHAMMED ALI,S/O.MOOSA, BUSINESS AT PAZHYANGADI,ROOM NO.MP VII-551, EZHOM AMSOM,ERIPURAM-CHENGAL DESOM, P.O.PAZHAYANGADI,KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- R.C.R.No. 165 of 2009-E ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The landlady is in revision. She challenges the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need for own occupation invoked by her in the RCP. As for the ground of arrears of rent, the demand for rent arrears was made on the basis of a Clause in the rent chit to the effect that rent will stand enhanced by 10% every year. The statutory authorities have concurrently found that the above Clause cannot be implemented, as the rent chit in question is an unregistered one. The view of the statutory authorities in the above context cannot be said to be wrong. We therefore approve action of the statutory authorities in having declined the R.C.R.165/09 2 eviction which was sought on the ground of arrears of rent. 2. We will now consider whether there is any reason to interfere with the order declining eviction on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation. The need projected by the landlady was that the building is required for occupation by her husband Khalid so that he can conduct hardware business. Sri.Khalid himself gave evidence as P.W.1. It came out from his testimony that the need which he projected in the R.C.P. was conceived by him in 1996, the time when he returned for good from the gulf country where he was working thitherto. It came out further in evidence that in 2000 the petition schedule building fell vacant and the same was let out to the respondent. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently noticed the above circumstance as one indicating absence of bonafides. Even though, Mr.P.Babu, learned counsel for the appellant addressed strenuously, we are not persuaded to hold that the view concurrently taken by the R.C.R.165/09 3 statutory authorities regarding the genuineness of the need is erroneous. The revision necessarily will have to fail. 3. But we notice another aspect of the matter. The building is situated in a commercially important area at Pazhayangadi very close to Pazhayangadi Bus stop. The rent of Rs.1200/- presently being paid by the respondent is far below the rent the building may fetch if the same is let out today. Hence we refix the rent payable by the respondent at Rs.2,400/- per mensem with effect from 01.2.2011. If either party is aggrieved, it is open to them to apply to the Rent Control Court under S.5 for regular fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is so fixed, the respondent shall pay rent @Rs.2,400/- per mensem. 4. The RCP is dismissed by refixing the rent at Rs.2,400/- per mensem. We make it clear that this judgment will not preclude the revision petitioner from initiating fresh proceedings for eviction on all grounds presently available to R.C.R.165/09 4 the landlord including the ground under S.11(3) on the basis of change in circumstances. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. rka