CHELLITHARAYIL KESAVAN Vs. MAKKORAM VEETTIL JAYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is the order of eviction concurrently passed by the courts below under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The need projected by the respondent/landlord herein is that he wants to accommodate his son PW2 to start a snack bar cum coffee shop in the petition schedule building. The claim was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that PW2 is studying for M.Sc. Microbiology and so it is quite unlikely that PW2 would start a snack bar cum coffee shop in the petition schedule building. It is stated that the revision petitioner has been doing his tailoring work for the last about 40 years. It is also contended that this petition schedule room is not suitable for starting snacks bar cum coffee shop.

(2.) IT was found by the Rent Control Appellate Authority that PW1, the landlord, is conducting hotel business in a building situated on the either side of the road and that the articles required for snack bar cum coffee shop can be prepared from one of the rooms situated in that hotel building and that the petition schedule building can be used for sale of those items. The Rent Control Court considered the evidence given by PWs1 and 2 and found that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. On a reappraisal of the evidence , the learned Appellate Authority also concurred with that view.