MOIDEENKUTTY K. Vs. MANIPARAMBIL VISWANADHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Tirur, is the petitioner. The landlord has filed the rent control petition seeking eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It was allowed. The appeal filed by the petitioner herein as R.C.A.No.43 of 2018 under Sec. 18(1) (b) of the Act was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Tirur. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Sec. 20 of the Act. For convenience, the parties are referred to as stated in the Rent Control Petition.

(2.) The rent control petition was filed by the landlord claiming eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The need urged was that the landlord wanted to start hotel business in the petition schedule shop rooms. It was further contended that the petition scheduled shop rooms are the most suitable rooms since it has direct access from Kuttipuram bus stand. The claim of the landlord was resisted by the tenant by contending that the petition is hit by Sec. 15 of the Act since very same need was urged by the landlord in another petition which was dismissed and that the landlord has another building on the immediate east of the petition schedule building wherein a book stall was being conducted by the landlord and it was let out to another person after sending notice to the tenant and the bona fide need now put forth is not genuine. It was further contended that the tenant is depending upon the income derived from the petition schedule shop rooms and is entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) Evidence in the case consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RWs.1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A11, B1 series and X1 to X5. The Rent Control Court, after deliberating upon the said evidence and on hearing both sides, found that the need urged by the respondent-landlord was bona fide and that the petitioner is liable to be evicted. Challenge made by the petitioner to the order of eviction by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority was not successful. Hence, filed this revision.