KDASSERI BIJU Vs. SAJIVAN MUNDIADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenant of a room who is conducting a fancy store, aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority by which eviction has been ordered in favour of the landlord. It is a case where the Rent Control Court disallowed the eviction sought by the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), for bonafide need,

(2.) The order is under attack by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.M. Firoz mainly by pointing out that there is lack of bonafides on the part of the landlord since it is in evidence that he was having possession of another room, viz. room No.2/49 very near to the petition schedule building and that was given to his brother for conducting hardware business, five days prior to the issuance of the notice for eviction. It is also stated that earlier the landlord had filed O.S. NO.238/2004 stating that the agreement between the parties is a licence and seeking for a eviction. In the said suit, a finding was rendered that the transaction between the parties is a lease and not a licence and immediately the present Rent Control Petition has been filed.

(3.) It is also submitted that what is produced by the landlord in evidence before the Rent Control Court to support his case that his brother is doing hardware business in room No.2/91, is only Ext.A7, a receipt showing payment of renewal licence fee which was actually produced after his examination, at the fag end of the trial. It is further submitted that the landlord is doing business in bakery in another locality, viz. in West Hill Junction and the plea raised is that he wants to shift the same to the petition schedule room. It is in evidence that his own brother is conducting bakery business in the nearby building, very near to room No.2/49 and therefore it is not normal that the very same business will be shifted to the same locality.