JAMEELA Vs. MOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A building situated at Market Road, Ernakulam and in the occupation of the respondent tenant, belongs to two sisters, the petitioners herein. The petitioners moved the Rent Control Court for evicting the tenant under S.11(3) and S.11(4)(iii) of Act 2/65. In support of the first ground, it was alleged that the 1st petitioner was carrying on a business in the name and style of "Cochin Pharma Distributors" at Church Landing Road and that the building in the tenant's occupation was required for that business. The allegation in support of the 2nd ground was that the tenant had obtained other premises within the same city to carry on two separate hotel businesses, one near Jos Junction and another near Pallimukku Junction. S.11(3) permits eviction of the tenant if the landlord "bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him". And S.11(4)(iii) allows eviction if the tenant acquires possession of a building in the same city, reasonably sufficient for his requirements.

(2.) The Rent Control petition and the tenant's objections thereto had apparently proceeded on the footing that "Cochin Pharma" was a proprietary business of the 1st petitioner. As a matter of fact, the business belonged to a firm with four partners, and the first petitioner was only one among them. This circumstance was brought out during the cross examination of PW 1 with the result that the point formulated for decision by the Rent Control Court was in these terms:

(3.) When the matter was taken up in revision under S.20, the District Court took a different view on the scope of S.11(3), and said: