ABOOBACKER Vs. SAHITHYA P S SANGHAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Rent Control Court after having satisfied that the need of the landlord under sub-s.(3) of S.11 of Act 2 of 1965 is bona fide could still reject the application under S.11(10) of the Act on the ground that the claim is not bona fide.

(2.) Rent Control Petition was filed seeking eviction under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act for arrears of rent as well as for bona fide need for starting a super market in the petition schedule building. Petition schedule building situates in the heart of the town of Thrissur facing Post Office Road. Petitioners are partners of a partnership firm by name "Kannamkilakath Rest Palace". They are conducting a lodge having 37 rooms at Thrissur and are also engaged in the business of building materials. The first petitioner alongwith the 7th petitioner who is his son bona fide needs the tenanted premises for starting a super market. They have got the capacity and the ability to start the super market. Petition was resisted by the tenant urging that the need alleged is not bona fide and that the petitioners have no capacity to start super market. Rent Control Court was not satisfied with the need urged under S.11(3) and dismissed the petition holding that the plea of the petitioners is only a mere desire. Petitioners took up the matter in appeal and the Appellate Authority found that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide and also found that the petitioners have got the financial capacity to start super market in the tenanted premises, but rejected the petition. The Appellate Authority while appreciating the bona fide need opined as follows:

(3.) From a reading of the above provision the following aspects emerge, viz.,