C. KARUNAKARAN Vs. T. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in appeal. The respondent landlady filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the appellant tenant (for short "the appellant") under Sections 11(2)(a) and (b) and sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", on the grounds of arrears of rent and for bona fide need for occupation by her elder son for conducting stationery business in the Court of Rent Controller, Kannur. The appellant tenant in his written statement contested the claim of the appellant and sought protection of the second proviso to sec. 11(3) of the Act which provides that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business.

(2.) The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. The appeal filed by the respondent landlady was also dismissed.

(3.) Aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller and the first appellate court, the respondent landlady filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1338 of 1992 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court by its impugned judgement set aside the judgements and orders passed by the courts below and accepted the plea of the landlady for eviction on the ground of bona fide need.