SHAMSHAD.M.H Vs. P.A.PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent/landlord lodged the rent control petition invoking Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, for short) alleging that he wanted to start a business of toys and books in the tenanted premises. This was disputed by the revision petitioner, who claimed the benefits under the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) THE Rent Control Court, after collecting the evidence, found that the alleged need is bona fide and ordered eviction. The revision petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, this revision petition.

(3.) THE revision petitioner contended as follows:- The respondent is not the absolute owner of the petition schedule room. The cardiac disease made mention of by the respondent does not disable him to continue his profession. If the respondent is ill, he would not be in a position to sit and manage the proposed business. Therefore, the need put forward by the respondent is not bona fide and is only a ruse for eviction. The wife of the respondent demanded an exorbitant rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, which was refused by her. This refusal has prompted the respondent to initiate the proceedings. There is absolutely no necessity for the respondent to augment his income as he is immensely rich. His intention is to let out the building after vacating the revision petitioner. The vacant room available in the first floor is convenient for the alleged need. It is having road frontage also. The revision petitioner is mainly depending upon the income derived from the said business and no alternate sites are available in the locality to re-locate the business.