BASHEER Vs. LONA CHACKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Important question of law to be decided in this case is whether need for occupation of a registered Private Company in which the landlord is a Director, is the bonafide need of the landlord for his own occupation. Revision petitioners are tenants of the respondent. They occupied line rooms in the same building owned by the respondent. Respondent filed eviction petition to evict these revision petitioners. The common ground urged is one under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act). Other grounds were also urged. Rent Control Court dismissed the application in all respects. The matter came in appeal. Appellate Court held that the claim is maintainable under S.11(3) of the Act and dismissal of the case on that ground was not correct and the matter was remanded. S.11(3) of the Act reads as follows:

(2.) In appeal the appellate court found that the need urged by the appellant is housing company in which he has substantial interest and therefore lower court finding is not sustainable and was set aside. The appellate court found as follows:

(3.) The whole question to be considered is that can the need of the Company in which the landlord is substantially interested can be said to be the landlords own need for the purpose of S.11(3) of the Act. One decision referred in this matter is D.N. Sanghavi v. A.T. Das, AIR 1974 SC 1026 . There the Supreme Court stated that the phrase his own occupation used in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act has got very much significance. The Supreme Court held in Para.8 as follows: