PETER GEORGE Vs. LICIAMMA MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mathew was the owner of the building. Petitioner was a tenant under him. Respondents 1 to 7 are the widow and children of Mathew. They became landlords by inheritance on the death of Mathew. They sued petitioner for eviction on grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation and subletting. Subletting was found against and it was not pursued further. By the original of Ext. P4, rent controller ordered eviction on other two grounds. Petitioner appealed. Appeal was allowed and rent control petition dismissed by the original of Ext. P5, which is patently perverse. Revision filed by landlords was allowed by District Judge restoring Ext. P4. Ext. P6 is copy of the order.

(2.) In this original petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution petitioner wants this Court to quash Exts. P4 and 6 and dismiss the rent control petition.

(3.) Bona fide need, coming under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alone now survives. Respondents are admittedly running an industrial unit at a distance from the town area manufacturing rolling shutters and other consumer goods. Industry continues as a sick unit. Building sought to be evicted is in the town. It is fit for a show room and store room for the unit. Bona fide need alleged is to use as a show room and store room in an attempt to revive the unit. Contention of the Petitioner is that the said purpose could be achieved by advertisements in newspapers and exhibition of slides in cinema theatres. He also claimed that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the trade conducted in the building and no other suitable building is available. His further case is that landlords are having two rooms in their possession, in which the show room and store room could be housed.