K.T.SANKARAN,J The respondent filed RCP No.8 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Alathur against the petitioner herein under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed the RCP and ordered eviction. On appeal by the tenant as RCA No.38 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court. The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the courts below. 2. The need put forward by the landlady is that she wants to conduct a stationery-cum-fancy stores in the petition schedule building and also in the adjoining room which is in occupation of one Sasidharan. The landlady stated that the separating wall between the two rooms can be demolished and the business can be conveniently conducted in the total area available. The landlady filed another Rent Control Petition against Sasidharan and that was pending. The tenant disputed the bonafide need. He also contended that he is entitled to the benefit of first proviso and second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
3. The landlady as well as the tenant were examined before the court. Rent Control Court, on consideration of the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties, held that the landlady established the bonafide need put forward by her. As regards the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenant could not point out that the landlady is in possession of any other building. As regards the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court held that the tenant failed to prove both the ingredients of second proviso to Section 11 of the Act. The tenant did not produce any document to show his income which he derives from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. Therefore, it was held that the tenant failed to prove that the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building is a main source of livelihood of the tenant. No steps were taken by the tenant to establish that other buildings are not available in the locality to accommodate the business of the tenant. It is well settled by several decisions of this court that the burden to establish both the ingredients of the second proviso is on the tenant. The tenant having failed to establish the said ingredients, the Rent Control Court held that he is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
4. A contention was put forward by the tenant that the building in the possession of the tenant Sasidharan was agreed to be sold by the landlady to one Surendran and that Surendran had filed O.S.No.128 of 2009 for specific performance of the said agreement. It is submitted that the landlady contended in O.S.No.128 of 2009 that she was compelled to execute the agreement in question when she borrowed money from Surendran. The suit was contested by the landlady. It is submitted that O.S.No.128 of 2009 was partly decreed by allowing the plaintiff Surendran to realise the amount paid by him to the landlady as advance. It is also submitted that the plaintiff as well as the defendant in O.S.128 of 2009 have filed appeals challenging the decree of the trial court and those appeals are pending.
5. A contention was put forward by the tenant that since RCP No.7 of 2011 filed against Sasidharan was not disposed of, the Rent Control Petition in the present case should be stayed. The Rent Control Court rejected that contention and held that there is nothing wrong in taking for trial and disposal, RCP No.8 of 2011 and it is not necessary to wait for the result of RCP No.7 of 2011.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ landlady submitted that on getting vacant possession of the petition schedule building in RCP No.8 of 2011, she can start the business and she can conduct the business of both stationery and fancy items after getting possession of the other room in the occupation of Sasidharan. That the RCP filed against Sasidharan is pending is not a ground to deny the landlady her right to get vacant possession of the building belonging to her and in respect of which both the courts below held that she proved her bonafide need.
7. The findings rendered by the courts below being findings of fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact in the absence of any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the proceedings of the courts below. The RCR fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
8. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the building. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the tenant and his predecessor in interest were continuing in occupation of the building for the last several years, we are of the view that time till 31.7.2015 can be granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building with the following conditions.
Accordingly, the tenant is granted time till 31.7.2015 to vacate the petition schedule building on condition that he shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court on or before 31.01.2015 unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule building and also on condition that the tenant shall deposit the arrears of rent on or before 31.01.2015 before the Rent Control Court and shall continue to deposit the monthly rent on or before 10th of the succeeding months till he vacates the petition schedule building. If the tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the benefit of time granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building shall stand cancelled and the order of eviction shall be executable forthwith. If the tenant complies with the conditions mentioned above, the order of eviction shall not be executed till 31.7.2015.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE lgk