P K GOPAN Vs. RASHEEDA SULAIMAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant challenges in this revision an order of eviction concurrently passed by the statutory authorities on the ground under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. The need projected by the landlords was that the petition schedule building is needed bona fide, so that the landlords can conduct business in opticals in the petition schedule building bearing door number 9 and in adjacent room bearing door number 10 and in the hind room having door number 4 which were at the time of commencement of the rent control petition in the possession of the other tenants.

(2.) The bona fides of the need was disputed and the tenant contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. Contention was raised based on the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section also. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and on appreciating the evidence, would enter a finding that the need projected is bona fide and that the rent control petition is not liable to fail by virtue of either the first proviso or second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.

(3.) The tenant preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Stating that during the pendency of the appeal another room fell vacant and it is possible for the landlords to accomplish their projected need by occupying that room, the tenant filed an application for issuance of commission so as to obtain a report regarding the details of the rooms allegedly under the vacant possession of the landlords. The learned Appellate Authority did not allow that application. In stead, after deciding the appeal against the tenant on merits, the Appellate Authority dismissed that application by a cryptic order.