LATHIKA Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant/counter petitioner in R.C.P. No. 17 of 2009 of the Rent Control Court, Kochi who is the appellant in R.C.A. No. 61 of 2010 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam has come up in revision challenging the judgment in R.C.A. No. 61 of 2010. The R.C.P. was filed under Section 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965 by the landlord who is conducting sales in electrical items in the room adjacent to the petition schedule shop room. The landlord became the title holder of the building and property through a bequeath by the late father of the landlord through Ext.A1 will. The landlord wants to have extra space to develop his business and therefore he bona fide needs additional accommodation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Courts below have failed to consider the bona fide need for additional accommodation urged by the landlord and to weigh the comparative hardships of the tenant properly.

(2.) EVEN in the midst of the limited scope of scanning the evidence in a rent control revision, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has led us through the evidence in the R.C.P. On going through the evidence and the order passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence adduced by both sides in its correct perspective and have arrived at a correct conclusion regarding the bona fide need urged by the landlord, under Section 11(10) of the Act.