THANKA Vs. VYDYANAHA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord, who was aged 76 at the time when the rent control petition was instituted, was that he wants to occupy the building for conducting business in electronics equipments after reconstructing the same in view of its present dilapidated condition.

(2.) THE tenants by filing objections disputed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. THEy even contended that they were entitled to fixation of tenure over the land upon which RCR.No.261/2011 2 the building is situated. THEy also contended that there is no bona fides in the need projected and that at any rate the rent control petition is liable to be rejected by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11.

(3.) IN this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.Shoby K.Francis, learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed extensive submissions before us on the basis of the various grounds raised. The learned counsel submitted that though the findings of the statutory authorities are concurrent, they are tainted with illegality, irregularity and improprieties as contemplated under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965.