STELLA Vs. KERALA FOREST PROTECTIVE STAFF ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by an order against them under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, the tenants in the two shop rooms of the very same landlord, have come up in revision. Originally, the respondent/landlord, who is the Kerala Forest Protective Staff Association, represented by its State President, had filed R.C.P.No.15 of 2005 and R.C.P.No.16 of 2005 before the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, on the grounds under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. When it reached the stage of evidence, the ground under Section 11(2)(b) was not pressed, as the arrears of rent was discharged by the tenants. The Rent Control Court found that the need urged by the landlord for own occupation is not bona fide and also that the tenants are entitled to the protection of the 2nd proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. At the same time, the Rent Control Court found that the claim of the landlord under Section 11(3) is not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of the RCPs., the landlord preferred R.C.A.No.55 of 2007 from the order on R.C.P. No.15 of 2005 and R.C.A.No.56 of 2007 from the order on R.C.P. No.16 of 2005. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur found that the need urged by the landlord for own occupation is bona fide and that the tenants are not entitled to the protection of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Further, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority upheld the finding entered by the Rent Control Court that the claim of the landlord under Section 11 (3) is not hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Consequently, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur allowed the RCAs. by allowing the RCPs. under Section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the findings entered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.55/07 and R.C.A.No.56/07, the tenants have come up in revisions as R.C.R.No.73/11 and R.C.R.No.166/11 respectively.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the need urged by the landlord is not bona fide and that the petitioners are entitled to the protection of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners have gone to the extend of challenging the concurrent findings entered by both the courts below on the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act also.