AYIROLI HAMEED Vs. KOYYAPURATH KUNIYIL BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 is challenged in this revision. THE need projected by the landlord is that he bona fide needs the petition schedule building to accommodate his son PW2, who was aged about 42 years to start business in sale of eggs. THE landlord contended that PW2 is not having any job or avocation and as such he has to be accommodated in the petition schedule building for conducting the proposed business.

(2.) THE plea raised by the landlord was resisted by the tenant contending that the need projected is only a ruse for eviction and that the landlord is having so many buildings and other properties and that his son PW2 is also doing business and as such there is no necessity for PW2 to start business as alleged in the petition.

(3.) THE only other ground that has been projected by the tenant is that PW1 has stated that coconut husk mill is closed down. THEre is no cogent evidence regarding that effect. THE tenant did not produce any document to show that coconut husk mill is actually being run by PW1. That is a point which the tenant could have established by producing documents regarding the same from the local authority/panchayat. No attempt was made with regard to the same by the tenant. THE landlord could not be asked to prove a negative thing that the business is not being conducted by PW2. If as a matter of fact, any such business was conducted by PW2, that could have been easily proved by the tenant. THErefore, it cannot be said that adverse inference can be drawn with regard to the same.