PADMAVATHI Vs. KRISHNA PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment in R.C.A, No. 36 of 1998 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Judge and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. Revision petitioners are respondents 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 in the appeal. R.C.P. No. 38 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Munsiff and Rent Controller, Kochi was filed by the first respondent - Krishna Prabhu. Respondent 2 onwards are the other respondents in R.C.A. The R.C.P. was filed by Krishna Prabhu, first respondent herein, for eviction of one Sreenivasa Pai who died when the matter was pending in appeal. The R.C.P. was filed under S.11 (3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act').

(2.) THE case of the landlord was that he was in possession of a building adjacent to the petition schedule building, which was rented out to the respondent in the R.C.P. He was doing business in vegetable and dry fruits and also backery items. According to him, he wants the tenanted building also for the purpose of expansion of his business and for the purpose of additional accommodation. He further stated that one of his sons, Rajesh is to be married and hence the present income is not enough. The tenants contended that the need is not bona fide. Further, they claimed the benefit of the second proviso to S.11 (3) of the Act.

(3.) AFTER going through the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, it was of the view that the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the bona fide need is not correct. According to the Appellate Authority, a reading of the evidence of P.W.1, and the circumstances will show that the need alleged is bona fide. It also held that the plaint schedule building is required for the additional accommodation for expanding the business of the landlord. So far as the benefit of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act is concerned, it held that the tenant has not discharged the burden under the second proviso to S.11 (3) of the Act. Thus, order of eviction was passed under S.11 (3) of the Act. It is against that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.