SAMEERA Vs. M.C.MAMMOOTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant, against whom the first respondent filed an application for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court disallowed eviction and in appeal filed by the landlord, eviction is ordered under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The remaining grounds have been disallowed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) In the application for eviction filed by the first respondent herein, the bonafide need pleaded is for the occupation of his son, Shri Noushad who proposes to start a ready made garments shop in the said building. It was pleaded that he has acquired sufficient knowledge and experience in the said business and he is financially capable to start the business also and that the said Noushad is depending upon the landlord for the petition schedule building. It was also averred that they have no other vacant buildings to start the said business. The allegation made under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act is that the tenant is using the building in such a manner as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently and the material alterations have substantially affected its nature and utility.

(3.) The landlord had taken out a commission, who filed Exts.C1 report and C2 plan. The evidence of the landlord consists of the testimony of P.W.1, the landlord, P.W.2, his son Shri Noushad and another person was also examined as P.W.3. The tenants have examined R.Ws.1 to 3. The Commissioner has been examined as C.W.1.