LALU MATHEW Vs. BINO ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent is the landlord. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction, and the Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court.

(2.) The tenanted premises is a portion of the ground floor of a three storeyed building measuring 750 sq.ft. which is being used by the tenant as a showroom for his crockery business. The tenancy arrangement commenced in the year 1997. Earlier, the tenant was using the second floor of the building also as a godown to keep the stock of the products handled by him. However, on a request made by the landlord, the tenant surrendered the second floor of the building and is using an adjacent building as his godown. It was while so, the eviction petition was instituted. The case set out by the landlord in the eviction petition is that he needs the premises for establishing a computer related business in which he is proficient and for establishing a dental clinic for his wife who is a Dentist. One of the contentions raised by the tenant in the proceedings was that the need set out by the landlord is not bona fide, and it is after rejecting the said contention, eviction was ordered by the Rent Control Court.

(3.) It is seen that during the pendency of the appeal, the first floor of the building measuring approximately 1800 sq.ft. held by another tenant of the landlord fell vacant. The tenant preferred an interlocutory application then in the appeal seeking orders appointing an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain and report the said fact. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The tenant challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority in this regard before this Court in O.P. (RC) No.17 of 2022. This Court dismissed the above original petition holding that it is unnecessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose sought for, as there is no dispute as regards the said fact. It was, however, observed by this Court in the judgment that in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, (1981) 3 SCC 103 and Sheshambal v. Chelur Corpn. Chelur Building, (2010) 3 SCC 470, the Appellate Authority is expected to examine whether the fact pointed out by the tenant has any impact on the relief claimed by the landlord. It was also observed by this Court in the judgment that such a contention cannot be simply brushed aside as a subsequent event. Thereupon, the appeal was taken up and disposed of by the Appellate Authority, affirming the decision of the Rent Control Court. As noted, it is aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority that the tenant has preferred this revision petition.