MUHAMMED Vs. ABDUL RAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision at the instance of the Respondents tenants is against the concurrent decision of the courts below, for their eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) Two shop rooms in a building belonging to the petitioner landlord were let to the respondents tenants for conducting a grocery shop. The landlord is in possession of two rooms and a side room in the same building. Eviction was ordered by the courts below on the finding that the landlord bona fide requires the two rooms in question for the purpose of his residence as well as to carry on a trade for his living.

(3.) Even though the finding of bona fide need for own occupation of the landlord is challenged in this revision, nothing is brought out before me to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. The courts below have accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord that he is presently residing in a house belonging to his step mother, he has no right of residence in the said house, there are other persons residing with the step mother and there is no sufficient space for the occupation of the landlord and his family. On the evidence in the case, the finding of bona fide need of the landlord for the occupation of himself and his family for the purpose of residence and to conduct a trade to earn a living is perfectly justified and cannot be interfered with in this revision.