KUNNUMMAL SREEDHARAN Vs. HAMZA HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in a proceeding for eviction in R.C.P. No.27 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, Tirur, is the revision petitioner. He challenges the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') as confirmed in R.C.A. No.20 of 2016 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur.

(2.) The eviction was claimed for the bona fide need of the son of the landlord to start a super market in the schedule room as well as in the adjoining rooms. Separate petitions for eviction were filed against the tenants in each of the rooms. Since the landlords need satisfied the ingredients of Section 11(3) of the Act and the tenant could not claim the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3), eviction was ordered by the Rent Control Court.

(3.) In appeal also, the contentions of the tenant were negatived and it was found that the bona fide need of the landlord was clearly established, after finding that the son of the landlord is a dependent. The non-examination of the dependent son of the landlord was rightly found to be not fatal, since the landlord himself was examined. The Appellate Authority also rejected the contention of the tenant regarding the availability of alternative buildings with the landlord. Since the tenant was found to be having several sources of income, the benefit of the second proviso was also not extended to the tenant.