P P ABRAHAM Vs. K C THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the tenant on the ground under sub section (8) of Section 11. The landlords had sought eviction on the ground of arrears of rent also, but we are informed that the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on that ground has attained finality. The landlords, who are father and son, are conducting their dental clinic in the first floor of the petition schedule building which is the second floor of a three storyed building. The tenant revision petitioner is conducting business of manufacturing and service of contact lens in the second floor of the same building. The need projected by the landlords under Section 11(8) is that they need additional accommodation for the purpose of expanding their clinic.

(2.) Bona fides of the need was disputed. It was also contended that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the provisos to sub section (10) of section 11 i.e. advantages to be gained by the landlord will not outweigh hardships the tenant will sustain. At trial by the Rent Control Court, evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, report C1 and C1(a) sketch submitted by the commissioner, oral evidence of PWs1 & 2 and that of RW1. The Rent Control Court on analysing the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the need of additional accommodation was bona fide. It was concluded that the hardship, which may be sustained by the tenant, will not outweigh the advantages which the landlords will gain by getting eviction. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.

(3.) The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court, thus the appeal was dismissed and the order of eviction was passed.