KAMALAM Vs. DAVIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision is the order of eviction passed concurrently under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The need projected by the landlords was to start a business of collecting raw coconut and for sale of coconut oil. It was stated that he is at present running a mill near his house. The need projected by the landlord was resisted by the tenant contending that it is only a ruse for eviction and there is no necessity to obtain the petition schedule building for starting the business proposed. The tenant also contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) The learned Rent Control Court after analysing the evidence found that the bona fide need urged by the landlord is true. It was further found that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3). Though order of eviction was passed under Section 11(2)(b) also, the same is not challenged. The tenant can get that order vacated by filing application under Section 11 (2)(c) within one month from today. The order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority after reappreciating the evidence adduced by the parties.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner vehemently argued that both the courts did not appreciate the evidence properly. It was contended that the landlord was having in his possession four other rooms. But it was brought out in evidence that those rooms are not suitable for starting the proposed business. It was further found that the petition schedule room is more suitable for the proposed business and as such the court below came to the conclusion that the claim is bona fide and is not prompted by oblique motives or extraneous considerations.