VALIYIL MOIDEENKUNHI Vs. EDACHERIKKANDI GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are revision petitions filed by the tenants against landlords, landlords being same in all the four revision petitions.

(2.) By a document Ext. A2 dated 6-6-1976, the landlords purchased the rights over the petition schedule properties. After so purchasing the rights over the properties, the landlords issued notice Ext. A3 dated 5-4-1976 seeking to terminate the tenancy and demanding possession of the building. The demand not having been complied with, eviction proceedings were initiated. Two grounds were mentioned: (a) the requirement of the petitioners for starting a business of their own; (b) arrears of rent. The second ground does not survive for determination, as it is now admitted that there are no arrears of rent.

(3.) The Rent Controller considered the question while discussing point No. 4; it referred to the admissions contained in the evidence of the petitioners and ultimately entered a finding: "With this evidence, I am not in a position to say that the need pleaded can be construed as bona fide". The alternate contention about the availability of other suitable buildings, even on the assumption that the need pleaded was bona fide, was considered by that authority. It found that there was no evidence to prove the availability of other suitable buildings.