JOSE Vs. CO OPERATIVE STORES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord is the revision petitioner. Rent Control Petition was filed under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, the petition schedule room was obtained by the petitioner under document No. 207/85 from his father. The respondent had taken the premises on lease from the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. After the assignment in favour of the petitioner, the matter was duly intimated to the tenant. The tenant then attorned to him. The petitioner needs the petition schedule room for his bona fide occupation. He intends to start business in cold storage. The petitioner has no other building in his possession and he was to start the business for earning his livelihood. The petitioner has made preliminary arrangements for starting the cold storage business. It is alleged that the tenant is guilty in keeping the rent in arrears. Further the respondent has acquired another building, where it can conduct business.

(2.) The petition was resisted by the tenant. The Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the rent has been kept in arrears and hence the contention under S.11(2)(b) of the Act was negatived. The finding under S.11(3) and S.11(4)(iii) of the Act was against the landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, after considering the matter, dismissed the appeal. It is against that the present revision is filed.

(3.) We are told that so far as the contention under S.11(2)(b) of the Act is concerned, it does not survive now. In so far as the question of bona fide need is concerned, both the courts have found against the landlord. We perused the orders of the lower court and we are satisfied that no interference is called for. But so far as the ground under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that the order passed by the court below is not correct.