ABDUL HAI Vs. NANDAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant's revision. The respondent sought eviction of the revision petitioner from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), alleging as follows:

(2.) The revision petitioner countered that the respondent is not entitled to claim rent. The building was taken on lease for the purpose of letting out. Previously, the building was being used as a hostel. The building does not have the amenities to carry out the business of lodging. The revision petitioner is depending on the income derived from the petition schedule building and no buildings are available in the locality to shift the business. The respondent was aware of the occupation of various tenants. Most of them were in possession of the building, even before tenancy arrangement and the allegation that the building was let out without the consent of the respondent is not true. The need alleged by the respondent is not a bona fide need. The intention of the respondent is to sell out the property.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller declined eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. However, eviction was ordered under Section 11(4)(iv). The revision petitioner appealed, but without success. Thus, he has come up in revision under Section 20 of the Act.