K P BHUVANENDRAN Vs. BILAVINAKATH SAHIDABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed against him under Section 11(3) of the Act. The case pleaded by the landlady can be stated thus:-

(2.) THE petition schedule building is situated in the ground floor of the building. Her daughter Sajida is residing in the upstair portion of the building. Sajida's husband has almost deserted her. In order to enable her to eke out her livelihood, Sajida intends to start tailoring work in the petition schedule building. Hence, to accommodate Sajida who is a dependant on the landlady, she (the landlady) bona fide needs the petition schedule building.

(3.) THE learned Appellate Authority on a re-appraisal of the evidence found that the room bearing No.22/115 was not lying vacant, but was in the possession of the landlady's son Munuver Ahammed who was conducting 'fast food' business in the name and style "Mannus Hotel". It was thus found that the first proviso to Section 11(3) has not been established by the tenant so as to dis-entitle PW1, the landlady to get eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. It was held that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) as it was found that the tenant is conducting business in another building also. THE two ingredients required for getting protection under the second proviso could not be established by the tenant. Since the bona fide need urged by the landlady was found to be genuine and honest, eviction was ordered under Section 11(3).