M P KRISHNAN ACHARY Vs. AJIMON T S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, a traditional goldsmith who is conducting smithy works in the petition schedule premises is aggrieved by the orders of eviction concurrently passed by the statutory authorities under sub section 3 of Section 11. THE respondents/landlords are two in number. First respondent is aged 39 and is presently working in a toddy shop. THE second respondent is a retiree from the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. THEy purchased petition schedule building jointly and as such are equal co-owners of the petition schedule building. THEy sought to evict the petitioner under sub Section 3 of Section 11. THE need projected by them was that the income which the first respondent is getting from the toddy shop is meagre and not sufficient for supporting him and his family. Further case was that the pension which the second respondent is getting from KSRTC is also inadequate. Hence, the petitioners together have taken a decision to start a restaurant in the petition schedule building situated in a very important area of Kottayam Municipal town and hence, the revision petitioner/tenant is to be evicted for accomplishing their need.

(2.) THE tenant would dispute the bona fides of the need. It was contended that the claim is projected only as a ruse for eviction. It was further contended that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. In the enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Court, the first respondent who is the first petitioner in the RCP was examined as PW1 and the Advocate Commissioner was examined as PW2. THE documentary evidence on the side of the landlords consisted of Exts.A1 to A5 series. On the side of the tenant the same consisted of Exts.B1 to B7 series. Exts.C1 and C1(a) were report and sketch submitted by the Commissioner and Ext.X1 was the vacancy register produced by the Accommodation Controller. THE oral evidence on the side of the tenant consisted of RWs.1 to 4. THE Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlords is bona fide. It was also concluded by that court that the tenant was unsuccessful in showing that he is entitled for the protection of the second proviso. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3).

(3.) WE have very anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. As directed by us, the learned counsel placed before us copies of the Rent Control Petition, the statement of objections filed by the tenant as well as the testimony of PW1, the 1st respondent. WE have gone through each one of them meticulously. WE have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court.