ANANDAN, S/O. POKKAN Vs. MADATHIL PATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady sought eviction of the tenant on the plea of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). The finding was against the landlady which was reversed by the Appellate Authority and from which this revision petition is filed by the tenant.

(2.) WE heard Shri B.Krishnan and Shri T. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel Shri T. Krishnan Unni and Shri S.A. Saju, appearing for the respondent.

(3.) THIS is a case where the landlady demanded eviction for own purposes to start a tailoring shop and earn income for her livelihood for which she pointed out that she has experience in that field. The eviction petition was resisted by the tenant on various pleas. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner. The landlady was examined as P.W.1 and the tenant was examined as R.W.1. Even though the tenant proved in evidence that there are a total of 7 rooms in the building in which the petition schedule room is situated and all are in possession of the tenants and the tenant contended that the room in his possession is not liable to be vacated, the said plea was not accepted by the Appellate Authority. The finding is that there is no evidence to show that any of the rooms are remaining vacant.