KADUNGON ABDULKHADER Vs. KODIYIL NASEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a case where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 is bona fide, is it the requirement of law, in terms of that Statute, that the bona fides of the claim of the landlord has again to be considered in view of Section 11(10) of that Act?

(2.) THE landlord, a lady, pleaded that her husband, who was about to return from the gulf, is dependent on her for occupation of the scheduled building, for him to conduct a vegetable shop. The Rent Control Court allowed the R.C.P on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant who is the petitioner herein unsuccessfully challenged that order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority; which, after scanning the evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal holding that the need urged by the landlady is bona fide, and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 11(3) of the Act merely enables a landlord to apply for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of the members of his family who is dependent on him for such an accommodation. On going through Section 11(3) of the Act it is clear that it is a provision that enables the landlord to put forward such a claim by filing an application before the Rent Control Court. At the same time, S.11(10) clearly casts an obligation on the part of the Rent Control Court to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if it is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide.