EZHUTHUPPALLI VIJAYAN Vs. CHENNIKKATT MOIDEEN KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the tenant of a building owned by the landlord. The landlord filed R.C.P.No.81/2009 before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court disallowed eviction under Section 11(3) (bona fide need) and allowed the same under Section 11(2)(b), namely for arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court has made it clear that the tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2)(c), if he so opts. The Appellate Authority, in an appeal filed by the landlord set aside the finding under Section 11(3) and allowed eviction on that ground also.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel Shri K.Jayesh Mohankumar appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Shri O.Ramachandran Nambiar appearing for the respondent.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority in para.11 was of the view that from the first proviso to Section 11(3), it can be seen that the landlord has to show reasons for not occupying another building only if he is having possession any other building on the date of the eviction petition and there is no evidence with regard to the fact that the landlord was having any other building in his possession as on that date and so the question of making a mention of the same in the eviction petition does not arise. This in a nut shell is the background of the contentions of the parties and the findings rendered by the authorities below.