PARAMBATH RYRU VYDIAR Vs. VARIAMKANDIYIL SASEENDARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. On appeal by the landlord Appellate Authority allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) Petition schedule room was let out to the tenant by the grandfather of the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 17.50. Petition schedule shop room and the property in which rooms are situated were bequeathed to the present landlord and to his brothers as per registered Will executed by his grandfather in the year 1971. Second brother who is away in Gulf. Landlord could not secure any employment. However, he had practiced videography and used to cover various important functions as a professional videographer. Second respondent before the Rent Control Court is the brother who had helped him with money to buy video camera and accessories. Petitioner wanted to set up a video studio in the petition schedule room.

(3.) Petition was resisted by the tenant. It was contended bu the tenant that he is an ayurvedic physician doing consultation and dispensation of medicine in the petition schedule room and his family is depending upon the income that is derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule room. It was also contended that there is no bonafides in the plea of the landlord. Benefit of the provisos was also claimed. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the need projected by the landlord is genuine. Rent Control Court however held that tenant is entitled to get the claim under Section 11 (3). While holding so, Rent Control Court has stated as follows: