IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 RCRev..No. 133 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.32/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR RCP.89/2001 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... : REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ FRANCIS, AGED 46, S/O.MALIEKAL OUSEPH, CHERUVATHERY DESOM, PALISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. FRANCIS, PARTY-IN-PERSON RESPONDENTS: ------------- STEPHEN, AGED 50, S/O.MORIYADAN THOMAKUTTY, CHOWUR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON 17/6/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. No. 133 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The tenant in a rent control proceedings, R.C.P.NO.89/2001 is the revision petitioner herein. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellate authority as per the impugned judgment, granted eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. 2. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as bonafide need for his own occupation for conducting furniture business. It was pleaded that the tenant took the petition schedule room on lease after executing a rent chit on 1.10.1996. He was conducting a furniture shop in the petition schedule room. The rent is in arrears from 1.7.1997 onwards. These, in a nutshell, are the contentions raised by the landlord in the petition for eviction. 3. The tenant mainly contended that he has not executed any rent chit; there was no landlord-tenant relationship and that he had never taken RCR 133/2008 -2- the petition schedule room on lease for conducting furniture business. He denied the allegation that he had been conducting a furniture shop in the petition schedule room. The tenant further contended that the landlord agreed to construct a building in his property for giving it on lease to him and towards the expenses for construction, he received an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the tenant. Stating the above contentions, an agreement was executed on 1.10.1996 which is not at all a rent chit. There was total failure on the part of the landlord in complying with the conditions of the agreement. He never completed the building and did not give it to the tenant. The tenant had to file O.S.No.148/1998 and a further criminal complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court under Sections 417 and 420 I.P.C. against the landlord for his failure to comply with the conditions of the agreement. 4. The Rent Control Court raised a specific point whether there is any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The landlord examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exts.A1 to A14 documents in evidence. The petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1 and produced Exts.B1 to B6 on his side. Exts.X1 to X3 were marked through other witnesses. 5. The Rent Control Court, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, found that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. As regards the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, it was found that the exact date from which the rent is in arrears is not evident. RCR 133/2008 -3- Hence, that point was decided against the landlord. The Rent Control Court also found in favour of the landlord on the ground raised under Section 11 (3) of the Act. 6. The petitioner appeared in person and reiterated his contentions before us. The respondent appeared on caveat and we heard Shri Santhosh P. Poduval, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner contended that both the authorities below acted perversely in treating the agreement dated 1.10.1996 as an evidence for the rental arrangement between the parties and further creating a landlord-tenant relationship between them. It is pointed out that at any rate, the same can be treated only as an agreement and thus, the controversy, if at all, has to go outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court, since he was not at all a tenant covered by the provisions of the Act. It is pointed out that he never conducted any furniture business in the petition schedule room and he had no liability towards arrears of rent also. It was contended that the landlord failed in completing the construction as agreed. It is pointed out that the findings rendered by both the authorities on this aspect is without reference to the evidence available before them and thus it warrants interference at the hands of this court. 7. The Rent Control Court, on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, found that even though Ext.A1 is not a rent chit, it is evident from the same that the landlord agreed to give a room on lease to RCR 133/2008 -4- the tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The reasoning adopted by that court shows the following: The main dispute raised by the tenant is that the construction work was not completed within the stipulated time provided in Ext.A1. It is also alleged that there were violations of Building Rules and this led to the room being not numbered or electrified. Ext.A2 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.148/1998 filed by the petitioner herein against the landlord. The landlord relied upon Exts.A4 and A5 tax receipts, Ext.A6 letter and Ext.A7 ownership certificate issued by the Secretary, Cherpu Grama Panchayat to show that the schedule room was numbered as III/191A. Exts.A8 and A9 are the building tax receipts. All these cumulatively show that the construction was over during 1997 itself. In Ext.A2 the petitioner had admitted that the work relating to the building was completed in the middle of April 1997 and that the petitioner had stocked furniture in the petition schedule room. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent is the owner of the room and the petitioner herein has been inducted as tenant by which a landlord-tenant relationship has been established. 8. The appellate authority, after a detailed analysis of the evidence adduced, agreed with the findings rendered by the Rent Control Court on this aspect. We find that the view taken by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on this aspect is a plausible one. At any rate, it is a finding of fact which does not warrant interference in exercise of the RCR 133/2008 -5- revisional jurisdiction of this court. 9. Regarding the liability to pay the rent, the Appellate Authority was of the view that rent is in arrears from 1.7.1997. This finding was rendered based on two aspects. It was found that the petitioner admitted that he is in occupation of the building for storing his furniture, from the date of completion of its construction. It was completed in the middle of April 1997. Secondly, the landlord clearly admitted that he received rent upto June 1997. It is on this basis the Appellate Authority found that there is default on the part of the petitioner to pay the rent from 1.7.1997. Even though the petitioner attacked the said finding, we are of the view that the said finding also does not call for any interference. The view taken cannot be said to be a perverse one on the admitted facts and evidence of the case. 10. As far as the bonafide need urged by the landlord is concerned, both the authorities concurrently found that the landlord has been successful in proving the bonafide need alleged. The requirement is for conducting a furniture shop. Presently, he is not having any room in his possession for conducting a furniture shop, whereas he has put up a shed on the southern portion of his house for the conduct of his business. The said place was found to be inconvenient. As far as this aspect is concerned, the petitioner has no case that the case pleaded by the landlord is a ruse to evict him. Admittedly, the landlord is having only a shed to conduct the business and in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the need projected is a mere RCR 133/2008 -6- desire and is not a bonafide one. Both the authorities have analysed the evidence, according to us, correctly. Therefore, the finding as far as the bonafide need is concerned, does not call for any interference. As regards the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenant is not entitled for its protection. He had not been successful in proving the elements necessary to show that he is mainly depending upon the income that is derived from the business in the petition schedule room and that there are no suitable buildings available in the locality for his purpose. The orders passed by the authorities below are therefore upheld. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/