REGHUNATHAN NAIR Vs. A JAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against the revision petitioner on the ground under sub Section (3) of Section 11. In fact, the landlord had invoked other grounds also but the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 is the only ground which survives. The Rent Control Court in the first instant allowed order of eviction under Section 11(3) after holding that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and also that the tenant is not entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The Appellate Authority, however, considering the appeal filed by the tenant interfered with the Rent Control Court's order and dismissed the Rent Control Petition mainly on the reason that the landlord, who is put up in Singapore, had not given oral evidence in support of the need projected by him. According to the Appellate Authority, PW1, the brother and power of attorney holder of the landlord, is not competent to testify regarding the bona fides which is essentially a state of the landlord's mind. The aggrieved landlord approached this Court by filing revision (R.C.R.No.56/2008). This Court confirmed the finding which had been concurrently entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the tenant is not entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. This Court, however, set aside the decision of the Appellate Authority disallowing the eviction on the reason that the landlord had not given oral evidence and remanded the appeal to the Appellate Authority giving opportunity to the landlord to adduce oral evidence before the Appellate Authority. Pursuant to that remand order, the landlord came down from Singapore and got himself examined as PW4. The learned Appellate Authority has passed the impugned judgment appreciating the entire evidence including the oral evidence adduced by PW4. Under the impugned judgment, it is found that the bona fides of the need projected by the landlord stands established. After entering such a finding, relying on the already concluded finding that the tenant is not entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, the learned Appellate Authority has ordered eviction against the revision petitioner under sub section (3) of Section 11.

(2.) In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the findings entered by the Appellate Authority including the finding that the tenant is not entitled for protection of the 2nd proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11.

(3.) Sri.V.Vrij Mohan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of the various grounds raised in the revision. The learned counsel submitted that the need projected by the landlord is just a pretext for evicting the tenant. According to him, the petition schedule building is situated in the heart of Kollam town and the real intention of the landlord is to demolish the building so that he can put up a new commercial building in its place. The learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord put up an apartment complex consisting of six residential apartments. If the need of the landlord was bona fide, the landlord could have utilised any one of the apartments for accomplishing the need. The learned counsel submitted that though the newly put up buildings are residential apartments, they are much more suitable than the garage in the landlord's sister's house in which the landlord business is presently accommodated. The learned counsel submitted that it was on the basis of another business, which at that time was being conducted by the tenant, that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concluded that the business carried on in the petition schedule premises is not the only business of the tenant. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant became constrained to surrender that building, as a result of which, presently the tenant has no source of income other than the business carried on in the petition schedule building. The learned counsel requested that the question whether the tenant is eligible for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 be reconsidered.