PUTHIYUEDATH SHAHIR Vs. KUNHANPURATH MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defeated tenant is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent- landlord sought eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court allowed eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. It stands confirmed in appeal.

(2.) While attacking the orders passed by the authorities below, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Shri Srinath Girish that this is a case where the authorities below have not properly considered the evidence while discussing the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. According to him, the landlord is already in occupation of the two rooms and this is a clear case where the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is attracted. In that context, our attention was invited to para 10 of the order of the Rent Control court and submitted that in two sentences the plea has been rejected against the tenant.

(3.) The plea raised by the landlord, briefly stated, are thus: He purchased the building in November 2006. Several other shop rooms are also there. He wants to expand the business and to start a new business for his wife. Presently, he is conducting a business under the name and style of "National Industrials" on the eastern side of the schedule shop room wherein he is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of grills and other iron materials. He wants to start a business in aluminum fabrication and has pleaded financial soundness. Since the petition schedule room is the adjacent one, he wants the same under his custody for starting the said business.