ALBEN D SOUZA Vs. RATNAKARA SHENOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent tenant in RCP No. 34 of 1986 is the revision petitioner. That rent control petition was filed by the respondent herein, who is referred to as the landlord, for eviction of the tenant under S.11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) According to the landlord, the eastern portion of the petition schedule building and its upstair portion are in the occupation of the tenant, which were rented out to the tenant and he is doing business in that portion along with his own adjoining premises. The western portion of the building is in the occupation of the landlord where he is doing hardware business. The tenant is employed in Canada for the last more than two decades. He comes to Ernakulam only occasionally. The landlord bona fide requires the petition schedule premises as additional accommodation for his personal use. There is no sufficient space now in his possession for doing his business.

(3.) Although the tenant raised several contentions before the Rent Control Court, it is not necessary to refer to all those contentions in this order. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S.11(8) of the Act. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority the tenant urged mainly one point viz. his claim for the benefits under S.11(17) of the Act since he came into possession before 1-4-1940. The Appellate Authority did not accept that contention and confirmed the order of eviction. In this Court learned counsel for the tenant has raised only his claim for protection under S.11(8) of the Act.