SOMARAJAN AND ANR. Vs. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an order of eviction passed against the revision petitioners by the Rent Control Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 11.

(2.) The need projected by the landlord, a retiree from the Government service, was that in 1980 when he joined the Government service he was conducting a bakery in the petition schedule premises and now that he has returned from Government service, he needs to conduct business in pooja articles in the petition schedule building. It was stated in the RCP itself that in view of the proximity of the petition schedule building to the Mahadevar Temple , Kollam, the conduct of such business in the building will be very successful.

(3.) The tenants revision petitioners, through the statement of objections, contended that the need is not bona fide. It was also contended that the landlord has sold away two or three rooms some time prior to filing of the RCP and that in respect of the petition schedule building itself there was an agreement for sale and purchase between the parties. It was also contended that for believing the promise of the landlord, the tenants disposed of another item of property which had in fact been offered as security for this lease. Alternatively, it was contended that the tenants are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11.