V P VENUGOPALAN Vs. H K VASUDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision under Section 20 the order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the statutory authorities on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. Even though several grounds were also invoked, it is only the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 which survives.

(2.) THE need projected by the landlords was that they need possession of the petition schedule building for the purpose of conducting business in sweets and fruits. THE first respondent/landlord's oral evidence as PW1 inspired the Rent Control Court. THE Rent Control Court considered the tenant's contention that he is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section(3) of section 11 and found that the tenant was in possession of another building and he was conducting some other business in that building. Accordingly, the benefit of the second proviso was declined to the tenant.

(3.) THE submissions of Mr.Gopikrishnan Nambiar were resisted by Sri.Aniyankunju Varghese learned counsel for the landlords, who has entered appearance coming to know about this revision.