GEORGE T.I. Vs. K.L. STANLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant of a building, who is ordered to be evicted from the premises for the bona fide need of the landlord, is the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. B.N. Shiv Shanker submitted that so many factors have relevance to show absence of any bona fide need herein which have not been properly appreciated by the Appellate Authority. At the outset, it is pointed out that the Rent Control Court had rejected the prayer under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the 'Act'). The case was tried along with RCP No. 90/2010 and the Appellate Authority reversed the finding.

(2.) We have been taken in extenso through the pleadings, the notices issued by the landlord and the evidence in the matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext. A6 notice was issued on 24/11/2007 wherein initially, the landlord had set up a plea on bona fide need. It is stated by the landlord in the present eviction petition that the tenant had sought for time to vacate the premises and therefore, he did not approach the Court. The present proceedings have been initiated after Ext. A8 notice dated 09/04/2010 was issued. It is submitted that there is no explanation for the delay and even in the evidence, he had stated that the actual need was felt in the year 2005. The learned counsel therefore submits that if the need had actually been there in 2005, the filing of the eviction petition in the year 2010 will show that it is only a ruse to evict the tenant. It is also submitted that the analysis of the evidence by the Rent Control Court was proper and the Appellate Authority has reversed the findings without going into the various aspects pointed out by the tenant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord Shri. M.R. Jayaprasad submitted that there are no circumstances to doubt the bona fide need of the landlord and it is well settled that the delay itself in filing the eviction petition after the issuance of the notice is not a ground to reject the eviction petition. He relied upon the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Aboobacker v. Nanu, 2001 2 KerLJ 699, especially in para 9 therein, wherein this Court was of the view that the Court can take note of the fact that a party may not rush to the Court for getting remedy.