HAMEED Vs. ITTOOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of proceedings for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It was originally filed as a writ petition" (O. P. No. 2761/1967) but in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Vareed v. Mary ( 1968 KLT 583 ) that a further revision under S.115 of the C.P.C. is not precluded against the order of the District Judge as revisional authority under S.20 of the Act, it was converted into this revision petition. It was then referred to a Division Bench and has come on before us,

(2.) The tenant who has been concurrently found to be liable to be evicted from two shop rooms in Broadway, Ernakulam, by the Rent Control Court, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority, is the petitioner before us. The Respondent before us purchased the landlord's rights under a registered document dated 29-9-1962 and filed a petition for eviction on 21-11-1962. Several grounds were urged for eviction, which, it is unnecessary to detail. The Rent Control Court found that rent was in arrear, and that the landlord required the building bona fide for his own occupation and ordered eviction on these grounds, and found against the other grounds urged. Before the appellate authority the Respondent did not dispute the fact that arrears of rent were deposited by the tenant, and the question of arrears was therefore not debated. The only ground thus urged to sustain the eviction before the appellate and revisional authorities, and before us, was that the landlord required the building bona fide for his own use.

(3.) It was common ground that the Act applicable to the proceedings in question is the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2/1965, (referred to as the Act) although the petition for eviction was instituted under the earlier Act of 1959. The relevant provisions of the two Acts are pari materia. S.11 of the Act in so far as it is material reads: