K.P. ALAVI Vs. P.P. JAMEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Control Court as well as by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original landlord died after the appeal was disposed of and therefore the Said subsequent event has totally eclipsed the bona fide need pleaded. It is Submitted that the deceased original landlord was a retired Professor from Calicut University and actually he wanted eviction of the petitioner tenant to start a publication and library unit for his purpose and for his mental satisfaction. It is also submitted that the finding by both the authorities regarding the plea under Section 11(3) is concentrated on the said need of the deceased original landlord. It is, therefore submitted that the respondents who are the legal representatives, are not entitled to bank upon the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the above contention cannot be accepted in the light of the specific pleas raised by the original landlord in the eviction petition, the details spoken to by him in his evidence as P.W. 1 and other factors. It is submitted that even in the lawyer notice sent by the landlord (Ext. A1) it has been clearly mentioned that the room is required for the purpose of augmenting income and for managing his family and also to start a publication unit with the help of his children. It is therefore submitted that the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be supported.