B.R. Gavai JUDGMENT
Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In the present case, the Appellant is the tenant of two shop rooms-one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor, each admeasuring 60 square feet. The tenant is doing textile business in the room situated on the ground floor, using the first floor as a godown. The ground floor room was let to the tenant on 10.10.1991 at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- which was later enhanced to Rs. 800/-. The first floor room was let to the tenant on 10.07.1998 at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- which was later enhanced to Rs. 317/-.
3. The Respondent-landlord filed eviction petitions being RCP No. 175/2013 as well as RCP No. 176/2013 on 11.10.2013 in respect of the two rooms in question. The said petitions were filed on three grounds, namely, arrears of rent, bonafide requirement for additional accommodation for the landlord's business, and material damage to the premises, Under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(8) and 11(4)(ii), respectively, of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ["Kerala Rent Control Act"].
4. The trial court in its judgment dated 28.02.2015, held against the landlord on the first and the third ground. However, so far as bonafide requirement of additional accommodation was concerned, it was held by the trial court that the landlord is the Managing Partner of M/s. Prabeesh Constructions, and that since the office of this firm was presently only in a small room in the same building, the other two rooms would be required by way of additional accommodation for installing staff members and materials. The trial court found that the Commissioner's Report in the present case did not point out that any particular rooms were vacant in the premises. Equally, the production of Exhibit B3, i.e., the Building Tax Assessment Register, which recorded that some rooms in the ownership of the landlord are vacant could not be relied upon. Further, it was held that the tenant had in his possession another room in a neighbouring building, albeit leased by his mother-in-law, and stating that, since the mother-in-law was not examined by the tenant, the reasonable inference that could be drawn is that the aforesaid room is in possession of the tenant. Finally, on comparative hardship, the trial court held that the landlord will be able to run his establishment in a better manner, whereas the tenant is not able to establish much hardship caused to him. In this view of the matter, the eviction petitions were decreed Under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Control Act.
5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by its judgment dated 30.01.2016, reversed the judgment of the trial court. It held:
<........