AHAMMED THAYIL Vs. V. BADRILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the orders of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The allegation in the Rent Control Petition regarding arrears of rent was that, as demanded in the statutory demand notice, the rent is in arrears from 2000 onwards. The above allegation was disputed by the Revision petitioner. The need projected in the context of ground under Section 11(3) was that the building is needed bona fide for occupation of Smt. Lakshmi Priya daughter in law of the landlady who is a graduate in Computer Science so that she can conduct computer related businesses in the building.

(2.) THE bona fides of the need and the claim were very stiffly disputed by the revision petitioner through the statement of objection filed by him. It was contended that the de facto claimant, the daughter in law of the landlady, is not a member of the landlady's family and that at any rate she is not a dependent of her mother in law for any purpose whatsoever. It was also contended that the husband of Smt. Lakshmi Priya is conducting a bar attached hotel in the same town very successfully. It was contended that the tenant is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965.

(3.) THE tenant preferred appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence, however, concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court regarding the existence of eviction ground. As regards the ground of arrears of rent the Appellate Authority would clarify that the rent is in arrears from December 2006.