VYLASSERI RAJU Vs. K.P. SUBAIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under Sub Section 3 of Section 11. The need which was projected in the RCP by the landlady was that the building in question where the revision petitioner is conducting business in electric goods is required bona fide for accommodating her dependant son who is examined as PW1 so that he can conduct stationery business therein. Though the bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 and it was also contended (though not specifically) that the RCP was liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11, the learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence held that the need is bona fide and also that the RCP was not liable to fail by virtue of either the first or the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11.

(2.) THE Appellate Authority considered an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner and re -appraised the evidence. The Appellate Authority also concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

(3.) EVEN though Sri.Omprakash addressed submissions on the basis of all the grounds in the RCR, he gave more thrust in his submissions to the argument that the RCP is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. He placed reliance on Ext.C1 Commission Report submitted by the Commissioner and Ext.C2 sketch submitted along with Ext.C1. He submitted that it was clearly reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 that rooms A and B shown in Ext.C2 sketch were vacant and were available with the landlord. According to the learned counsel, the explanation of the landlord that those two rooms were already let out to one Prakashan for the purpose of godown has not been substantiated by the landlord. He drew our attention to Annexures -A1 and A2 which will show that in response to an enquiry made under the provisions of Right to Information Act, the local authority has informed the tenant that the rooms A and B are not possessed by Prakashan as claimed by the landlord. Sri.Omprakash submitted that it is obligatory that when the landlord is in possession of other buildings the RCP should be rejected under the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11.