AUTHORITY/ DISTRICT JUDGE Vs. PRANOD VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is before us in revision.

(2.) THE respondent/landlord sought eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) alleging that his son Noufal, who obtained M.B.A degree, having no job, is intending to start a travel agency and he does not have any other rooms in his possession for the proposed business. Hence, according to him, it was absolutely necessary to evict the tenant from his premises. It was alleged in the petition that other vacant rooms are available in the locality for the revision petitioner to shift his business and that the revision petitioner has got sufficient income from many other sources other than the business being conducted in the tenanted premises.

(3.) THE Rent Control Court after raising proper points for trial, permitted both sides to adduce evidence and at the conclusion of trial, appreciating the evidence consisting of the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1 as well as Exts.A1 to A6, ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Though, the matter was carried in appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the order of eviction was confirmed. Thus, the revision petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.