ELIAS Vs. CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-Appellant having lost before the High Court lias come up before us challenging two judgments of the High Court allowing Civil Revision Petition filed by the tenant and dismissing the Review Petition filed by the Appellant. Shorn of all the unnecessary details the only question before die High Court was as to whether the trial court was right in upholding the landlord's plea that he required the premises for his bona fide occupation under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Landlord had pleaded that after retiring from service in the year 1990 he had decided to start the business of selling cold drinks. The tenant as usual resisted this and claimed that the landlord did not require the building for his bona fide occupation. The Rent Controller Court found in favour of the tenant on the ground that landlord was well-settled in his life and therefore when he ventured to take the business of selling cold drinks the social status of the landlord would not permit him to start such a 'C class business and on that count alone the application of the landlord under Section 11(3) was dismissed. The Appellate Court which was approached by the landlord, however, after due consideration of evidence found out that the approach of the Rent Controller was not right and the landlord could not be non-suited on non-existent grounds of status in life. Further the Appellate Court found out that the landlord had explained as to why he waited for three years before approaching the tenant and before serving a notice. The Appellate Court explained that he had three sons who were taking education and it was only after the three sons settled in life the landlord considered starting his business. The Appellate Court also explained the other aspects to the effect that the tenant had not raised any of the plea of nonavailability of the premises in the same locality. This well considered order of the Appellate Court was upset by the High Court. We are not at all satisfied with the order of the High Court. The only reason that the High Court has given for interfering is again reiterating the status issue of the landlord which is irrelevant. The High Court seems to have considered the fact that the landlord had three other rooms in the building in question which had been rented out to other tenants. The High Court has also observed that the tenant and his wife and the landlord are close relations and also that the landlord had three sons who are well placed in life and, therefore, social status of the landlord would not permit him to start a 'C class shop. In our view all these are irrelevant considerations. In fact, the High Court should not have ventured to disturb the final findings of facts arrived at by the Appellate Court in its well considered judgment. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and restore the order of the Appellate Court. Under the circumstances, however, on usual undertaking (to be given in two weeks) the tenant is granted tlirec months time from today to vacate the premises.