JESS RAPHAEL Vs. K L REGINA JOSEPH MRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant took on rent the property covered by this appeal (double storeyed building) on a monthly rent of Rs. 800. 00 for running a Nursing Home. The respondent-landlady Filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement and certain other grounds like default in payment of arrears of rent. We may state that we are not concerned with any ground other than bona fide need. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition holding that thoughthe bona fides of the landlady had been established eviction could not be ordered in view of second proviso to Section 11 (3 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This decision was arrived at since the tenant was dependent on his livelihood mainly on the income derived from business of Nursing Home run in the disputed premises. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of the landlady. A revision was preferred to the learned District Judge. He held that the Nursing Home run by the doctor does not fall within the meaning of the term "business". Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether he depends on this income for his livelihood inasmuch as it is not "business" he was liable to be evicted since the bona fide need of the landlady was beyond dispute. A revision preferred by the tenant to the High court was dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) Before us, the only question that arises for determination is as to the scope of Section 11 (3 of the Act. The contention on behalf of the tenant is the word "business" does not mean commercial activity. So long as a systematic activity is carried on it would be enough to call it "business". This is a case in which the tenant-doctor and seven members of the staff are running a Nursing Home as a business. As a matter of fact on a similar point under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Act) , this court in S. Mohan Lal v. R. Kondiah held that the profession carried on by an advocate is a business. The attempt of the court below to distinguish that ruling is incorrect. Hence, the tenant-appellant is entitled to succeed.

(3.) Per contra the argument on behalf of the respondent-landlady is that it is not a business since no commercial activities are carried on while running a Nursing Home. The judgment of the learned District Judge is correct.