BASHEER Vs. ABDUL NAZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents filed R.C.P.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Manjeri against the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

(2.) THE respondents purchased the building from Muhammed Haneefa Haji as per the registered assignment deed of the year 2008. THE first respondent was working abroad and he has presently returned to India with the intention of settling in Kerala. Respondents 2 and 3 are relative and friend of the first respondent. THE third respondent is conducting textile business under the name and style E.K. Textiles and Readymades in a rented building. THE landlord of that building had issued a notice to the third respondent to vacate the premises. It is stated that the third respondent requested for further time to the landlord to vacate the premises on the belief that the respondents would give vacant possession of the petition schedule rooms involved in the present case. Bonafide need alleged is that the respondents herein wanted to run a textile shop on a larger scale investing about ` 1 crore. THEre are two rooms in occupation of the petitioner. It was stated by the respondents that these two rooms are required for running the business proposed to be commenced by them. According to the respondents, the petitioner/tenant is not depending upon the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule rooms for his livelihood. THE respondents alleged that the petitioner is running another textile business at Pandikkad and that he is getting very good income from that business. It was alleged by the respondents that there are suitable buildings available in the locality to accommodate the business of the petitioner/ tenant.

(3.) THE Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority held that the bonafide need put forward by the respondents herein is genuine. THE oral and documentary evidence in the case were taken note of by the authorities below to arrive at a finding that the bonafide need put forward by the landlords is genuine. Interference under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act would be possible only if it is shown that the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. It is not established by the petitioner that the order and judgment passed by the authorities below suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.