K P KOMALAM Vs. MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Manjeri in R.C.A. No. 10 of 1997. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The rent control petition was filed by three petitioners who are coowners of the building. The petition was filed under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The rent control court dismissed the petition. Against that landlord preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority allowed the eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. So far as the ground under S.11(2)(b) concerned, the tenant has deposited the arrears of rent in the court below at hence that question does not arise for consideration. The question before is whether the eviction under S.11(3) is legal.

(2.) Petitioners wanted the building for the bona fide need of the first petitioner. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner retired as a Head master. He wants to start a business in sanitary wares in the petition schedule building. The amount which he receives as pension is not enough. He hi no other building in his possession. The tenant contended that the buildings was originally taken by her father. After the death of her father, present petitioner became the tenant. She is conducting a shop in foot wear. She depending on the income received from the business. There are no alternative building for shifting. It is also contended that the bona fide need urged is m correct. The first petitioner is staying about 20 kms. away from the petitioner schedule building. Petitioners have got other building in their occupation. The first petitioner was examined as PW 1. and the tenant was examine as RW 1.

(3.) The main contention urged by the counsel for the revision petitions is that the first petitioner in the R.C.P. is a retired person. He is living about 20 kms. away and hence, there is no bona fide in stating that he wants to start a business in sanitary wares. It is also submitted that he has no previous experience in doing business. He also contended that before filing the rent control petition certain rooms became vacant but that was not used by the first petitioner. According to us, so far as the bona fide need is concerned, we agree with the appellate authority that need urged is bona fide It cannot be said that merely because the first petitioner is a retired person, he should sit in his house and should not do any other thing. First petitioner has stated that he has no sons and has two daughters. The pension he is earning is not enough to meet his needs. So far as this aspect is concerned, according to us, what the court has to find is whether there is any oblique motive in raising the contention under S.11(3) of the Act. If there is no oblique motive, the need urged can be said to be bona fide. The mere fact that first petitioner is a retired employee does not mean that he cannot start business. In the decision reported in Viswanath v. Hidayatt Ullah 1999 (2) SCC 535 , the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: