ABDUL JABBAR Vs. ASIF ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act) is the petitioner in this revision petition. The landlords in the proceedings are respondents 1 to 3 herein. Though the Rent Control Court dismissed the eviction petition, the Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Rent control Court and ordered eviction. The tenant is aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority and hence, this revision petition.

(2.) The petitioner is running a bakery in the tenanted premises. The premises is one purchased by the respondents while the petitioner was occupying the same and the case set out by the respondents in the eviction petition is that their children namely, Saif Ali Khan, Liyakhat Ali and Haris intend to establish a fruits vending business in the premises. The petitioner contested the eviction petition mainly on the ground that the children of the respondents are not dependent on the respondents for accommodation and there is, therefore, no bona fides in the need set out by the respondents. It was also contended that the respondents have other buildings, and as such, even if it is found that the need is bona fide, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court, among others, found that the respondents have not established that their children are dependent on them for accommodation and also that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Sec. 11(3). On the basis of the findings rendered by the Rent Control Court including the findings aforesaid, the eviction petition was dismissed. The respondents challenged the decision of the Rent control Court in appeal. The Appellate Authority, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, reversed the findings rendered by the Rent Control Court including the findings aforesaid and ordered eviction. As noted, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents.