KUNHIRAMAN NAIR Vs. MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner in both the cases. R.C.P. No. 62 of 1998 was filed by the landlord for eviction under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965. Eviction was ordered by the Rent Control Court under S.11(2)(b). Eviction sought for under S.11(3) was rejected since tenant could claim protection under the second proviso to S.11(3). Eviction sought for under S.11(4)(ii) was also disallowed. Aggrieved by the same tenant preferred R.C.A.No. 176 of 1999 before the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the claim under S.11(3) as well as S.11(4)(ii) landlord preferred R.C.A. No. 119 of 2000 before the Appellate Authority. Both the appeals were heard by the Appellate Authority and a common judgment was delivered on 30.6.2001. Appellate Authority allowed the revision filed by the landlord and eviction was ordered under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) . Appellate Authority found that tenant could not establish the claim for protection under the second proviso to S.11(3). Counsel on both sides submitted that landlords have given up their case under S.11(4)(ii).

(2.) We may first examine the ground urged by the landlord under S.11(3) and examine the protection claimed by the tenant under the second proviso to S.11(3). Petition schedule building originally belonged to one Sankaran, husband of first respondent and father of respondents 2 to 4. Sankaran died on 21.2.1984 and petition schedule building devolved upon the respondents at his legal heirs. Third respondent was in Gulf countries. He came back from Gulf and wanted to start stationary business in the petition schedule building for his livelihood. Second respondent is now working as Secretary in a Cooperative Printing Press. PWs. 1 and 2 gave oral evidence on the side of the landlords and projected their need. They also deposed that respondents have the financial ability to conduct the business and they have no other building of their own to conduct business. It has also come out in evidence that late Sankaran had conducted stationary business in the petition schedule building at an earlier point of time. All these facts would indicate that the need projected by the landlords is bona fide. There is nothing in evidence to show that landlords have got any other building in their possession or in their ownership so as to defeat their claim under the first proviso to S.11(3).

(3.) Now we will consider the cardinal point urged by the counsel for the tenant. Counsel for the tenant Sri. Anil Sivaraman submitted that Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the evidence and applied the dictum laid down in Xavier v. Krishnakumary, 2000 (3) KLT 809 . Counsel submitted that the decision which is applicable is the one in Krishnankunju Raveendran v. Sukumara Pillai ( 1999 (3) KLT 373 ). Rent Control Court declined protection under the second proviso to the tenant relying on the above decision. Counsel appearing for the landlord on the other hand submitted that Appellate Authority has rightly rejected protection claimed under the second proviso to S.11(3).