LAILA A KHADER Vs. SCARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred against the judgment passed in RCA. 30/08 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam, declining the claim for eviction under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (BRC Act). The revision petitioner/landlord filed the petition under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition as prayed for. The order passed by the Rent Controller was challenged in appeal on various grounds by the respondent/tenant. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on the findings that the requirement for additional accommodation for expanding the business is not bona fide and that the decision taken regarding comparative hardship under proviso to Section 11(10) of the BRC Act is not correct. The facts of the case can be summarised as follows :-

(2.) Submissions at the Bar :

(3.) Per contra, Sri. Mathew John, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the findings on which the appellate authority allowed the appeal are perfectly justifiable and are not vitiated by any kind of illegality, impropriety and irregularity. He reminded us the limited jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the need projected for additional accommodation is only a pretext for eviction. Sri. Mathew John contended that vacant space is available in the existing show room itself. Similarly vacant space is available on the 1st and IInd floors of the very same building and the landlord could have used that space for expansion of the business. He argued that CPW4 was in possession of a shop room having area of 1200 sq.feet and on the request of the landlord, he surrendered that shop room in the year 2006. After getting that space, the landlord renovated the showroom including the surrendered area and there is no scope for a further expansion in the year 2009 and these aspects sufficiently establish mala fide behind the projected need. Lastly, the counsel argues that the appellate authority rightly assessed the advantage/hardship under proviso to Section 11(10) of the BRC Act and that findings are sustainable and justifiable on all points.