JOHN Vs. DISTRICT COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OVER lour decades passed since a building situated on a commercial street at Kozhikode (Sweet Meet Street)was rented out to the petitioner. He has been paying a rent of Rs. 70/- per month from the beginning without increasing the rate despite repeated requests of the landlord. Eventually an application for eviction was filed by the land lord on certain grounds under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short'the act), main among which is the ground that he needs the building to start his own business. Petitioner (tenant)adopted different defences to resist the claim for eviction. Though the Rent Control Court dismissed the application, the appellate Authority allowed it on the ground under S. 11 (3) of the Act and the District Judge, in revision, did not interfere. Hence, petitioner has filed this original petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) LANDLORD's case, as found by the authorities below, is that the building was let out in 1951 on a rent of Rs. 70/- per month, and petitioner was conducting initially stationery business in the building and later a medical shop under the name "janatha Medicals". The landlord was residing in Thiruchirapally where he was conducting a Radio Institute, but he went to Kozhikode as his ancestral home is at Chalappuram (in Kozhikode) and settled down there. Rent Control Court did not uphold the bona fides of landlord's claim to have this building for his own use. But the appellate authority, after finding that landlord's claim is bona fide, proceeded further and found that petitioner is not entitled to the benefits envisaged in the second proviso to S. 11 (3) of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner complained that appellate Authority ought not have admitted Ext. A50 at the appellate stage without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce counter evidence thereto. But, neither the appellate Authority nor the District Court in revision has relied on Ext. A50. Hence the admission of Ext. A50 at the appellate stage did not prejudice the petitioner.