PATTERI JANARDHANAN Vs. POTHIRAKATH JALEELA AND POTHIRAKATH KUNHALEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against the revision petitioner tenant on the ground under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 in reversal of the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the RCP. The need projected by the landlady was that the building is required bona fide for conduct of business in plastic and stationery by her husband Abdul Kalam Azad. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioner. He also contended that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. It was further contended by him that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. At trial by the Rent Control Court, the landlady got herself examined as PW1 and the further evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A7, Exts.B1 to B5 and RWs 1 & 2. RW1 was the revision petitioner tenant himself and RW2 was an advocate. The Rent Control Court, on appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady is not bona fide. One of the reasons that weighed with the Rent Control Court was that the husband of the landlady Sri. Abdul Kalam Azad had not mounted the box to testify regarding his need. However, that Court found that the rent control petition was not liable to fail by virtue of first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. It was found that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he is entitled for the benefit of second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11.

(2.) The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the landlady and has allowed the appeal under the impugned judgment. Before the Appellate Authority, the landlady filed an interlocutory application producing the passport of her husband. It was averred that husband has come back from the foreign county where he was previously employed and that he has no intention to go back. The learned Appellate Authority allowed that application and received the passport as an evidence in the case. The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence. The Appellate Authority also referred to the various judicial precedents governing the facts situation similar to the one which obtained in the present case and would conclude that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide. On the basis of that conclusion, the finding of the Rent Control Court that the need is not bona fide was reversed. The Appellate Authority concurred with the rent control court on the findings regarding the first and second proviso of Sub-section (3) of Section 11.

(3.) In this revision various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri. P.M. Pareeth learned Counsel for the petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of all those grounds. All the arguments of Sri. Pareeth were resisted by Sri. A. Mohammed Mustaque, learned Counsel for the respondents.