Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is by a tenant. He challenges concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority granting an order for eviction under Section 11(3) of that Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The landlord is a lady. Her husband gifted to her a shop room out of the three shop rooms which belonged to him. After about 5 years, she sued the tenant for eviction on the ground that she wants to start a business in ready made garments in that shop room. The tenant pleaded that the lady is illiterate and is dependent on the husband, and therefore, if at all, she had any idea of commencing a business, she could have commenced it in one of the other two rooms belonging to her husband and that those rooms had fallen vacant some time before notice to vacate was issued to the revision petitioner-tenant. It is also his case that the landlady does not have the ability by way of knowledge and information to conduct a business in ready made garments. He further pleaded that he is conducting a business of repair or sale of used two wheelers from the shop room and depends on the income derived from that business for his livelihood and that there is no other space available in the area for that purpose.
4. The Rent Control Court heard the testimony of the landlady as PW1 and the tenant as DW1. The documentary evidence included Ext.A1 settlement deed, by which the landlady obtained title to the building in September, 2007. The rent control petition was instituted in 2012. The landlady, as PW1, withstood cross- examination and denied the suggestions challenging landlady's ability to conduct the business and that the attempt is only to evict the tenant somehow or the other. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority considering the evidence on record, drew reasonable and legitimate inferences and upheld the plea of the landlady that she needs the building for her own occupation, and therefore, she has established her bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Act.
5. On the ground whether the tenant was entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority held that there is no cogent material on record to hold that the tenant had proved the twin conditions to sustain a defence under that proviso. There was no evidence to the satisfaction of the courts below regarding non-availability of other building in the locality and that the tenant had no other means or avocations for his livelihood. That plea of the tenant was also, therefore, repelled. We see that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have duly adverted to and considered the entire material evidence on record in the matter as well. We see no ground to interfere on that either.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this rent control revision fails.
In the result,
(a) This revision is dismissed.
(b) The revision petitioner is granted six months' time from today to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlady on the following conditions:
i. He remits the entire arrears of rent as on today before the executing court within six weeks from today and files an affidavit before the executing court within six weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlady within six months from today.
ii. He pays charges towards use and occupation of the building at the current rent rate from today till he gives vacant possession of the premises to the landlady.
(c) Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six months.
(d) If there is default in performing any of the conditions imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenant as per this order will stand recalled automatically and the executing court shall effect delivery forthwith.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg