MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD. Vs. P.P. SHYAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are the tenants who are facing with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act). Thus the legality, propriety and regularity of the findings, whereby the courts below have concurrently passed an order of eviction, under Section 11(3) of the Act are challenged in this revision petition. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. According to the petitioners, the petition schedule building has been leased out to the respondent, a non banking finance company to conduct their branch at Talap and they are in occupation of the tenanted premises. The 3rd petitioner is having no job and he wanted to conduct a shop for sale of electrical goods in the petition schedule building, especially for sale of fancy lights. The petitioners have no other buildings their own in their possession to start the proposed business. The petitioners 1 and 2 have no objection in giving the tenanted premises to the 3rd petitioner for conducting the electrical goods shop. The respondent is not depending upon the income from the business in the tenanted premises and several other buildings are available in the locality to shift their branch office from the tenanted premises. Thus they are not entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. With the aforesaid submission, they prayed for an order of eviction under Section 11(3).

(2.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction contending that the need projected is not bonafide and it is a ruse for eviction only. According to them, the tenanted premises is not suitable for conducting the proposed business as it is on the up-stair of the building, which is not easily accessible to customers. There is no parking facility in front of the tenanted premises. So the customers will not come to the shop, if the 3rd petitioner is starts an electrical goods shop. The respondent is a non banking financial institution having more than 3000 branches all over India and 14,500 employees are working in the company and they are depending upon the employment provided by the respondent company. They have already arranged facilities such as strong room, furnished lockers etc. by spending lakhs of rupees. If they are evicted from the building such expenses will become useless. With the aforesaid submission, the respondent prayed for dismissing the Rent Control Petition.

(3.) On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the materials on records, the courts below concurrently found that the need projected is bonafide and the claim for eviction is hit by the 1st proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and the respondent is not entitled to get protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The aforesaid findings are challenged in this revision petition.