SARADHA Vs. KUNHIPURAYIL LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, who faced orders of eviction by both the courts below under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short, the Act, is in revision.

(2.) The respondent, who is the landlord of the tenanted premises, sought eviction of the revision petitioner projecting the need to provide her dependent son space to run a textile trade. The revision petitioner resisted the petition admitting tenanancy, but contented that the respondent's sons are jointly conducting lucrative trade in textile at Vatakara town generating huge profit and the income from the said business is sufficient to maintain the families of both the sons of the respondent. Therefore, the revision petitioner contended that the need alleged is not bona fide. He also claimed protection under both the limbs of the second proviso to Section 11 of the Act.

(3.) The learned rent controller, after raising proper points for trial permitted both sides to adduce evidence and considering the evidence on record consisting the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1 as well as Ext.A1 to A3 and B1 to B16 accepted the case of the respondent/landlord in respect of bona fide need and ordered eviction, which was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by the impugned order.