THEKKUMBATH MOHANAN Vs. MALOL ABDURAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are the revision petitioners and they challenge the revised judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3). The need projected by the respondent/landlord was that the building which is subject matter of the present RCR and the adjacent building are required bona fide so that his dependant son who was examined as PW2 in the case can conduct jewellery business in these two rooms. The bona fides of the need was disputed and the revision petitioners also contended that they are eligible for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11.

(2.) The Rent Control Court in the first instance took the view that the bona fides is a state of mind which is to be manifested by the really needed person i.e. the son. The Rent Control Court took the view that the need is not bona fide. Even though the finding in the context of the second proviso was in favor of the landlord, the RCP was dismissed. Against that landlord preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority made a re-appraisal of the evidence. According to the Authority, it was not mandatory that the son for whom the building was sought for is examined. In that view of the matter the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction. The matter was brought up this court by the revision petitioners. In revision, this Court interfered with the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to the Rent Control Appellate Authority permitting the landlord to examine PW2 as a witness. Accordingly PW2 was examined and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on appreciating the evidence of PW2 also would find that the need is bona fide and also that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso. Accordingly, Appellate Authority has under the impugned judgment confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court.

(3.) In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri. V.N. Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed very strenuous submissions before us based on all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. Sri. Ramesan Nambisan in particular highlighted before us that the evidence given by PW2 conflicts with that given by his father PW1 in material particulars. It was submitted that a reading of the evidence of PW2 will show that PW2 has no intention to come back to India from the foreign country where he is presently working whereas PW1 father gave evidence to the effect that PW2 is financially in dire straits and badly intends to start the business of his own in his home town. Sri. Nambisan also submitted that going by the evidence of PW2 it is a small scale jewellery business which is proposed to be conducted by PW2. Unlike the large scale business spoken to by PW1 the small scale business spoken to by PW2 can be conducted in the adjacent room which is subject matter of other Rent Control Petition where eviction order has been passed in favor of the respondent. There is no need to evict the revision petitioners also for accomplishing the need even if the same is genuine. Sri. Nambisan while assailing the finding in the context of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 submitted that those findings are contrary to the evidence available on record.