JAIRA Vs. PADMANABHA KAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in a Rent Control Petition has come up in revision against the order passed by the Appellate Authority in R. C. A. No. 49 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kasaragod. Landlord filed the petition under S. 11 (2) (b) and S. 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The ground of arrears of rent has been concurrently found against the tenant and there was no argument before this Court challenging those concurrent findings.

(2.) THE ground of attack was the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority. THE landlord filed his application under S. 11 (3) of the Act stating that the petition schedule building was required for the residence of his son, PW 2, who is going to be married shortly. According to the landlord, the son wants to set up a separate residence in the building, which is tenanted by the petitioner. In reply, the tenant contended that PW 2 is the only son of the landlord and the present building in which the landlord and his son stay is comfortable enough for the residence of his son and his family. THE need for separate residence is not bona fide and it has been set up only to evict the tenant.

(3.) SRI. S. V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority grievously erred in coming to the conclusion that the need is bona fide. According to him, the observations made by the Appellate Authority are based on mere conjectures. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent SRI. V. V. Asokan, contended that the Appellate Authority have given a sound reasoning and is not to be interfered with under S. 20 of the Act.