T R PARVATHY AMMAL Vs. V SANKARA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision is whether the tenant of a residential building can take shelter under the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, for short the Act, if, residing in the building, he conducts a trade or business there and is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived therefrom. The petitioner is the owner of a building let out to the respondent tenant. She filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Control Court, Palghat against the respondent under S.11(3) of the Act. The respondent's case in the counter filed before the Rent Control Court was that the building was let out to him for his residence and for conducting a cycle shop. The respondent also contended that the petitioner did not bona fide require the building for her use and at any rate he is protected by the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition for eviction holding that the petitioner did not bona fide require the building and that at any rate the respondent is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3). The petitioner landlord challenged the above order in appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed that appeal upholding the petitioner's bona fide requirement of the building for her own occupation. The Appellate Authority also held that the respondent was not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) as it was not proved in the case that there was no other suitable building available in the locality to carry on his business. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and allowed the petition for eviction. The respondent tenant went in revision before the District Judge, Palghat. The learned District Judge though found the petitioner's bona fide requirement of the building, allowed the revision and dismissed the petitioner's eviction petition holding that the respondent was entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3). The petitioner landlord has come up in revision against the above order of the District Judge.

(2.) The second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act reads:

(3.) For the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that the decision of the Appellate Authority allowing eviction was in any way illegal, irregular or improper. In that case, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision under S.20 of the Act. The impugned order is set aside. The eviction ordered by the Appellate Authority will stand. The respondent tenant is given three months' time to vacate the building. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. The parties will suffer their costs.