(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed in respect of the scheduled building, a residential building, on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11.
(2.) THE need projected by the landlord was that the building is required for the occupation by his son Gopalankutty, who does not have any building of his own for his separate residence. It has come out in evidence that Gopalankutty is married and he has his own family. It has also come out in evidence that the other sons of the landlord are also married and have their own families and are presently put up in the family house along with the landlord.
(3.) SRI.R.Manikantan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us extensively on the basis of the various grounds raised in this revision petition. The learned counsel submitted that a bona fide need should have an element of necessity. If there was an element of necessity in the similar need projected by the same landlord in the three previous rent control petitions, those buildings would have been occupied by the other sons of the landlord. The conduct of the landlord in keeping those buildings under his own possession after evicting the tenants will show that the need projected in the present case is bereft of bona fides. The first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 will apply, according to the learned counsel. If, as a matter of fact, there was an element of necessity in the need presently projected, the landlord could have accomplished that need by accommodating his son Goopalankutty in any one of the three other buildings.