KRISHNAMMAM Vs. K P PATHUMABI

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 by the Rent Control Court on the ground under section 11(3). In fact, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority ordered eviction on other grounds also. But, it is submitted that in this revision we need have to be concerned only with the order passed under sub section (3) of Section 11.

(2.) The need projected by the landlady in the RCP was that the building, which is said to be a part of the line building, is needed bona fide by the daughter of the first respondent/landlady, who was examined before the Rent Control Court as PW2, for the purpose of residence. It was urged that PW2 and her family is presently put up along with the landlady in the landlady's residential house. The bona fides of the need was disputed. It was contended that, having regard to the social and financial status of the landlady and also the space available in the house presently occupied by the landlady, it is improbable that PW2, the landlady's daughter, will come and start residence in the petition schedule building, which is only a small portion of a line building. It was also contended that apart from residing in the petition schedule building, the revision petitioner is making sweets therein for sale and hence she is entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlady was examined as PW1 and the needy daughter of the landlady, as already stated, was examined as PW2. Documentary evidence on the side of the landlady consisted of Exts.A1 to A5. After evidence of PW2 was recorded, PW2 deposed before the Rent Control Court that her husband is a cooli. After PW2 was examined, the revision petitioner filed an application for issuance of a commission for showing that unlike the petition schedule building, the building in which PW2 is presently living and the building which is being constructed by PW2's brother are palatial ones. The learned Rent Control Court dismissed the commission application taking the view that it is as highly belated one and has been filed only after the landlady's evidence was recorded fully. On the side of the tenant, RW1, the tenant, and RW2, who was interestingly PW2's brother, was examined. Documentary evidence on the side of the tenant, consisted of Exts.B1 to B4. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence would come to the conclusion that the need projected was bona fide. As regards the claim of protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, it was held that going by Ext.A1 the lease was one for residential purpose and as the tenant is admittedly residing in the building, he cannot be given protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under sub section (3) of Section 11.

(3.) The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.