NALINI Vs. ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner who succeeded tenancy after the death of her husband Gangadharan, the original tenant of the petition mentioned room, is coming up in revision before this Court for the second time. The respondents/landlords sought eviction of the revision petitioner and her children from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) alleging that the tenants did not pay any rent with effect from 1.6.2005 and further that the respondents, who are residing at the rear portion of the building having two bed rooms and a kitchen, need additional accommodation for the son of the first respondent as negotiations for his marriage was going on and due to the inadequate residential convenience, nobody was willing to have an alliance with him.

(2.) The revision petitioner, who opposed the application, admitted the continuance of tenancy as the legal heir of late Gangadharan. However, she denied the allegation that she defaulted in paying the rent. It was further contended that the need alleged is only a ruse for eviction as the respondents are having other buildings for residence. It was the further case of the revision petitioner that the respondents are not using the tenanted premises for residential purposes. She also claimed that she is depending upon the income derived from the avocation that is being carried in the tenanted premises and no convenient buildings are there in the locality to shift the same.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence adduced, allowed eviction on both grounds. The appeal by the revision petitioner was allowed in part by the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). However, eviction under Section 11(8) was upheld.