(1.) THE tenant challenges in this revision filed under Section 20 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Court under Sub -Section 3 of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The need projected by the landlady in the RCP was that she is presently unemployed and that she wants to start a readymade garments manufacturing business and a sales outlet in the petition schedule building. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant raising various contentions. It was pointed out that the landlady had in 1997 instituted RCP No. 272/97 projecting the need of her husband to start an office for M/s Oceanic Cargo Services of which he was the Managing Director at the relevant time. The Rent Control Court after conducting enquiry dismissed that RCP holding that the need projected therein is not bona fide. Against that, the landlady preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal the landlady filed a petition for fixation of fair rent which was later compromised between the parties at the stage of appeal. The landlady did not pursue the proceedings for eviction initiated earlier. It was accordingly contended that the present proceedings initiated ten years after the institution of the earlier RCP is bereft of any bona fides and is only a machination on the part of the landlady to evict the tenant by hook or by crook. Alternatively the tenant contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub -Section 3 of Section 11.
(2.) IN the enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A4 and the oral evidence of PW1/the landlady on the side of the landlady. On the side of the tenant, the solitary item of evidence was tenant's oral evidence as RW1. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide. It was also found that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies the two ingredients of the second proviso. Accordingly, eviction order was passed under Sub -Section 3 of Section 11. The tenant preferred appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal under the judgment which is impugned in this revision after making a re -appraisal of the evidence and concurring with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court.
(3.) SRI .A.K. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner would address very strenuous and persuasive arguments before us on the basis of the various grounds raised in this revision. Drawing our attention to the factual background against which the present RCP is instituted Sri. Srinivasan submitted that there is no element of genuineness in the need projected by the landlady, who belongs to a rich and aristocratic family and whose husband is financially well placed in life. According to Sri. Srinivasan, the idea of the landlady who is presently put up at Cochin along with her children who are pursuing their education at Cochin coming over to Kannur and settling down at Kannur for the purpose of conducting the proposed business is inherently improbable and untrue. Sri. Srinivasan then submitted that the landlady sated in her evidence that she needs at least 600 sq. ft. of area for the purpose of accomplishing her need which is to have a manufacturing unit as well as a sales unit. According Sri. Srinivasan the area available in the petition schedule building is hardly 450 sq. ft. He would very fervently request that we appoint a commission to have a local inspection so that a report as to the area available in the petition schedule building can be obtained. Sri. Srinivasan then submitted that due to various reasons the tenant was not able to pursue the strong defences he had taken in the RCP. Though several documents were available with the tenant including the documents produced before this Court which would establish the fact that the tenant is eking out his livelihood by conducting tyre business as well as the office of a small scale stage carriage business which the tenant is having, the documents could not be produced. Sri. Srinivasan requested that the RCP be remanded to the Rent Control Court so that the revision Petitioner will get opportunity to produce all those documents and prove that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub -Section 3 of Section 11. In this context Sri. Srinivasan submitted that PW1 the landlady cannot boast of much credibility as she has gone to the extent of denying the fact that she is presently put up at Cochin and the further fact that the tenant is actually conducting business in the petition schedule premises. Sri. Srinivasan requested that an order of remand will be passed even if it be on imposing very stringent conditions.