DANIEL Vs. M.G. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Three tenants occupying three rooms of a building are the revision petitioners. Landlord filed petition for eviction under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Now we are concerned only with the ground under S.11(3) of the Act. Landlord claimed eviction for bona fide need for own occupation on the basis that he has constructed a multi storeyed building just behind the building occupied by the tenants. The building constructed is in the city of Thiruvananthapuram and it is in an important locality. The multi storeyed building was constructed after obtaining the due permission and licence from the Corporation on condition that the landlord will provide sufficient space for car parking for the multi storeyed building. Landlord submitted that only if the building occupied by the tenants is demolished and that space is also used for the purpose of car parking, the conditions stipulated for giving the licence can be fulfilled.

(2.) The Rent Control Court after a thorough investigation of all the circumstances and the evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that the landlord has established the bona fide need as contemplated under S.11(3) of the Act. The appellate authority also on a reappraisal of the evidence in a very detailed and reasoned judgment, confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. Now, the tenants have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) As regards the bona fide need, it is a concurrent finding. The bona fide need is always a question of fact. Of course, in certain circumstances it may be a question of fact and a question of admixture of facts and law. In this case, on facts, viz., that the landlord requires space for car parking for his multi storeyed building, there is no dispute. Further it is found that the car parking area can be provided only if the building in dispute is demolished and the area occupied by the building is generally required for car parking. Faced with this reality of the factual situation, counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that on a proper interpretation of the provisions contained in S.11(3) of the Act read with sub-s.(12) of S.11 should not admit of a case of bona fide need for own occupation of a building for the purpose of demolition of the same for the occupation of the space occupied by the building. S.11(3) of the Act provides that a landlord has got the entitlement to seek eviction of a tenant if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.