NARAYANAN Vs. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act") against the order dated January 28, 2003 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority directing him to put the landlord in possession of the demised premises under S.12(3) of the Act.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition which lie in a narrow compass may first be noticed.

(3.) The landlord respondent filed a petition under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non payment of rent and also on the ground that he (landlord) bona fide needs the building for his own use and occupation. It is alleged that the landlord is an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner and bona fide requires the tenanted premises for stocking, preparing the storing medicines as he intends to start his consultancy in the adjoining room. The petition was contested by the petitioner. He denied the bona fide need of the landlord and also claimed that the rent had been paid annually and that it was in arrears only because of the refusal of the landlord to receive the same. It was also pleaded that no alternative premises were available in the locality and that the tenant was mainly dependent for his livelihood on the income derived from the business carried on in the tenanted premises.