SUKESINI AMMA Vs. NAGARAJALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlady is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under S.11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court found that the need is bona fide and genuine and also found that tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to S.11(3). Consequently eviction was ordered. On appeal by the tenant, Rent Control Appellate Authority found that there is no bona fide in the plea of the landlord and the claim was disallowed, consequently the plea under the second proviso was not considered. Aggrieved by the same this petition has been filed by the landlady.

(2.) Petition schedule shop room was taken out on rent by the tenant in the year 1964 and is conducting business in the name and style "Parthas Textiles". Rent was periodically enhanced. A small scale industrial unit by name "Bintech Enterprises" was started by the landlady at Ambalamukku, Trivandrum in the year 1981 in a tenanted premises. She wanted to start Branch Office of the SSI unit in the tenanted premises. She has no other building of her own for the said purpose. Schedule premises is having 7 1/2 cents with petition schedule building. Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fides in the plea. It is stated that the attempt of the petitioner is only a ruse to get enhanced rent and there is no bona fide in shifting the branch office to the schedule building. It was also contended that the petition itself was not maintainable. Further is was also stated that there was successive enhancement of rent and there is no bona fides in the plea. In order to establish the case of the petitioner she got herself examined as P.W.I and produced Exts. A1 to A14 documents. On the side of the tenant Managing Partner of the tenant firm was examined as C.P.W.1. C.P.Ws. 2 and 3 were also examined. On the side of the tenant Exts. B2 to B2 documents were marked.

(3.) Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the need urged by the landlady is bona fide and ordered eviction. Benefit of the second proviso was also not granted to the tenant. On appeal, Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court and held that there is no bona fides in the plea. Since plea of bona fide need was negatived the question of granting the benefit of the second proviso was not examined.