K.K. SAIFY Vs. K.A. JULIET @ JULIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the order of eviction concurrently passed on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. Having scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and judgment of the Appellate Authority, we do not find any infirmity about the findings entered by those authorities in the context of arrears of rent. After all, any eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) is tentative and is liable to be got vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). We straight away confirm the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) and direct that if the petitioner deposits the entire arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority within two months from today and make an application under Section 11(2)(c) that order will stand vacated.

(2.) THE prominent ground on which eviction is ordered is the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The need projected was that the landlady wants to eke out income for her living by conducting an internet cafe. The landlady herself was examined as PW1. The learned Rent Control Court was inspired by her oral evidence. The Appellate Authority re -appraised the evidence and agreed with the finding of the Rent Control Court. Of course, the tenant had claimed the protection of the second proviso to Sub -section 3 of Section 11. Both the authorities have concurrently found that the tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that he satisfies either of the ingredients of the second proviso to Sub -section 3 of Section 11. Having regard to the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we are unable to find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the finding so entered into by the authorities below. The revision necessarily has to fail.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submissions, we feel that in view of the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting time to the revision petitioner till the end of this year i.e. 31/12/10 to surrender the premises imposing suitable conditions. The result is therefore, as follows: