T H ABDULLA Vs. T A MUHAMMED KUNHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against him on the ground under sub Section 3 Section 11. In fact, the landlord had invoked various other grounds of eviction. But, the only ground on which eviction is ordered is the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11 and hence, in this revision we can confine to the above ground.

(2.) THE need projected by the landlord was that he has no business or employment and needs to occupy the building for conducting grocery business. THE bona fides of the need was disputed. It was contended that the landlord is having several other source of income. It was also contended that the tenant is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. During the course of his examination as PW1, the landlord confessed that he was a Director in Chemmad Essential Oil Factory dealing with sandalwood oil manufacturing which according to the landlord was a partnership firm in which the other partners are the landlord's brothers. When this aspect of the landlord's evidence was highlighted before the statutory authorities, they would take the view that some more evidence requires to be adduced on the side of the tenant regarding the business conducted by the landlord and the income he derived therefrom. Both the authorities have concurrently concluded that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide. It was also concluded by both the authorities that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies the two ingredients of the second proviso.

(3.) WE, at the very outset find that there is no infirmity about the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the tenant has not succeeded in proving that he satisfies the two ingredients of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. WE hold confirming the finding of the statutory authorities that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso.