AYYAPPAN ACHARY Vs. RAJESH S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant, a goldsmith, under Section 20 is the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11.

(2.) THE need projected by the respondent/landlord, a Gulf returnee, was that he has come back for good from Gulf and he intends to conduct business in bakery and cool bar in the petition schedule room. THE bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that the real purpose of the landlord in seeking eviction is to let out the building on a much higher rent to another tenant. In this context, it was contended that the landlord had demanded an exorbitant hike in the rent which could not be acceded to by the tenant. Alternatively, it was contended that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. THE Rent Control Court conducted enquiry and on evaluating the evidence, which consisted of oral evidence of PW1, the landlord, and that of three witnessess DWs1 to 3 examined on the side of the tenant, came to the conclusion that the bona fides of the need projected by the landlord stood established. It was concluded that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies the two ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11 (3). Accordingly, order of eviction was passed.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. WE have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. The question is whether there is justification for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under section 20 on the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the findings entered therein in confirmation of similar findings entered by the Rent control Court are reasonable findings based on evidence on record. It was even admitted that the landlord had come back for good from a Gulf country and presently without any employment or engagement. When such a person comes forward with a case that he wants to conduct his own business, such claim can be presumed to be bona fide in the absence of oblique motives. In the present case the oblique motive attributed to the landlord is demand for higher rent. It is trite that merely because higher rent was demanded, the need cannot be assumed to be not bona fide. In these times when landlords are resorting to Section 5 of Act 2 of 1965 and the Rent Control Courts are fixing fair rent based on the prevailing rent rates in the locality, we do not think that merely for getting a higher rent any landlord will evict his tenant. At any rate the oral evidence adduced by the PW1 was found inspiring by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. WE do not find any warrant for upsetting the finding that the need is bona fide.