GIVE AND TAKE COMPANY Vs. MUKKANNAN MUMTAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the RCP to the Rent Control Court giving opportunity to the landlady to adduce oral evidence in support of her claim for bona fide need for own occupation. The landlady sought to evict the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation and also the ground under Section 11(4)(iii). The ground of arrears of rent and the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) were declined by the Rent Control Court and the decision declining eviction on those two grounds has become final. The need projected by the landlady under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 was that she needs the petition schedule building for conducting garment business. Before the Rent Control Court the landlady's husband was examined as PW1. The Rent Control Court took the view that since bona fides is a state of mind of the landlady, she and she alone is the person competent to testify regarding the bona fides of the need. In that view of the matter, the Rent Control Court found that the landlady was unsuccessful in establishing that the need projected by her was bona fide. The eviction sought for under Section 11(3) was accordingly declined.

(2.) The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment has set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and remanded the Rent Control Petition to the Rent Control Court permitting the landlady to get herself examined.

(3.) In this revision various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Sri. A. Mohamed Mustaque learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the order of remand cannot be passed by way of luxury. According to him, the Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have enquired whether there was any definite reason for the landlady in not examining herself as a witness on her side before the Rent Control Court. Such enquiry was not conducted by the Rent Control Court. For mere asking, opportunity is now granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority to the landlady for adducing oral evidence. The Rent Control Control Appellate Authority has virtually found that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide. Therefore the order of remand presently passed is a mere formality.