Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, who has lodged caveat, quite in extenso, on different aspects of this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965.
2. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have upheld the plea of the landlord that he bona fide needs the shop room occupied by the tenant to commence an activity of vending of pets and pets’ accessories. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have also held that the tenant was not able to sustain the defence under the second proviso to Section 11(3).
3. On behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant, it is argued that the application was merely a ruse to evict and no bona fides can be seen in demanding vacant possession of the shop room. The plea is that the adjoining room fell vacant about three months before notice of eviction was issued to the tenant in this proceedings and that the said room was let out to another person for higher rent. It is also pointed out that the father of the landlord is carrying on a business in ornamental fish aquarium in the same building and his son’s desire to commence a business in the same field does not appear to be bona fide.
4. For one thing, the material evidence on record clinchingly shows that the neighbouring room was let out to a person, who is stated to be conducting a business in name and style “Dhanalaxmi Lotteries”. The leasing out of that room to that person for a higher rent is not decisive to say that the landlord could not have conceived a business for himself in the nature of a pet shop, when his evidence is to the effect that he is involved in breeding of pet dogs, love birds and other pets in his home. His father has aquarium business and deals with ornamental fish.
5. The landlord appears to have pleaded in the petition that he does not have other source of income. However, it has come out in evidence that he has certain other avocations and generates funds thereby. The challenge of the tenant that the landlord has a huge income otherwise, was not substantiated before the Rent Control Court. It is not the law that only if one is in need to commence a business to support his livelihood, he could start a business and project as a need under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965.
6. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have considered the entire oral and documentary evidences on record. They have considered reasonable inferences available on the materials on record, taking note of the tenant's activity which is now being carried out from the premises. On examining all relevant factors, we see no ground to visit the decisions of the courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. This revision therefore, fails.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this rent control revision fails.
In the result,
(a) This revision is dismissed.
(b) The revision petitioner is granted eight months' time from today to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlord 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 landlord within eight 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 landlord.
(c) Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of eight 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