V A CHACKO Vs. V A THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners are the tenants. Second revision petitioner is stated to be the proprietrix of M/s. Velukaran Stores and the first petitioner who is the brother of the respondent landlord is managing the same.

(2.) For disposal of this case we may refer to the parties according to their status in the Rent Control Petition. Petition for eviction was preferred by the landlord under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Title of the disputed premises is not disputed. Petitioner had obtained the petition schedule premises as per sale deed No.4786 of 1995 of the Sub Registry Office, Ernakulam. Request was made to the tenants to vacate the premises since he wanted to start a departmental store. Petitioner has no business of his own apart from Matha Metal Agencies of which he is a partner. He has no other source of income. Therefore he wanted to start a business of his own to augment his income.

(3.) Tenant resisted the petition contending that the need is not bona fide. Further it is also stated that the landlord has got other rental income and therefore there is no necessity for starting business of his own. The attempt of the landlord is only a ruse to evict the tenant. Tenant also claimed the benefit of the provisos to S.11(3) as well. In order to establish the contention landlord got himself examined as PW 1. Second respondent tenant was examined as RW1. RWs.2 and 3 were also examined. On the side of the petitioner, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked and on the side of the respondent Exts.B1 to B12 documents were marked. Ext.C1 is the Commission Report.