SIVASANKARAN NAIR Vs. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. THE need projected by the landlords was that the building in question is required by way of additional accommodation, so that the landlords can conduct their STD booth and Photostat, lamination business in a more convenient way in the petition schedule building which enjoys the direct road frontage.

(2.) THOUGH the bona fides of the need was disputed and the tenant contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11 (10), the Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, which consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Exts.B1 to B10, Ext.C1 commission report and the oral evidence of PWs 1 & 2 and CPW 1, would hold that the need is bona fide. It was further held that the advantages, which the landlord will gain by getting eviction, will outweigh the hardships that may be sustained by the tenant.

(3.) EVEN though Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan was very persuasive and his submissions were attractive, we do not think that in the present jurisdiction, which is revisional in nature, we will be justified in making reappraisal of the evidence and upsetting the factual conclusions arrived in this regard by the two statutory authorities concurrently.