ISMAIL Vs. P K KESAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under S.11(3) of Act 2 of 1965, before the Rent Control Court Schedule building was let out to the respondent tenant for a monthly rent of Rs. 1025/- for a period of one year from 9.2.1994.Tenanted building is situated in an important locality of Cochin City at Jews Street. Respondent tenant is conducting a fruit stall in the tenanted premises. Petitioner's son P.K. Santhosh bona fide requires the schedule building for his own business. Tenant has other buildings of his own so as to conduct bis business. Petitioner therefore sent a notice to the tenant to vacate the premises. Tenant did not vacate the premises. Hence petitioner moved the rent control petition.

(2.) Tenant resisted the petition stating that the need is not bona fide and that the attempt of the landlord is only to sell away the property after evicting the tenant. Further it was also stated that petitioner's son does not bona fide require the premises and that he is away in gulf countries. Landlord got himself examined as PW 1. Landlord's son was examined as PW-2. Exts.A1 to A4 documents were produced on the side of the landlord. Tenant got himself examined as RW-1. RW-3 is Accommodation Controller. RW-2 was also examined on the side of the tenant. Rent Control Court after examining the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the need urged by the landlord is bona fide and also held that the tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of second proviso to S.11(3) as well. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, against which this revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) When the revision petition came up for admission counsel appearing for the tenant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Koyilerian Janaki and Others v. Rent Controller, Cannanore and Others, 2000 (9) SCC 406 , and contended that since there is no pleading to the effect that son is dependent on the landlord petition for eviction is not maintainable. Counsel took us through Rent Control Petition as well as oral evidence and contended that in the absence of any pleading courts below are not justified in granting eviction. Counsel appearing for the respondent landlord on the other hand, contended that the tenant has not disputed the status of the son who is dependent on his father. Counsel also took us through the oral evidence of PW 2 son, PW 1 and also pleadings of the parties. We may refer to the Rent Control Petition wherein the need was highlighted as follows: