MANGADA SUSHEELA Vs. THAVARAYIL BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this revision is whether it is necessary for the tenant to file a memorandum of cross-objection against the finding of the Rent Control Court in favour of the landlord under the second proviso to S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'), when the landlord challenges in appeal the order of the Rent Control Court holding that the landlord has not established the bona fide need under S. 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court found that the landlord has not established the bona fide need put forward by him. The Rent Control Court also found that the tenant failed to establish the ingredients of second proviso to S. 11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Petition was dismissed.

(2.) The landlord filed appeal before the Appellate Authority against the dismissal of the Rent Control Petition. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court as regards the bona fide need put forward by the landlord in the Rent Control Petition. The Appellate Authority held that the landlord succeeded in establishing that the building is required for the use of the 4th petitioner before the Rent Control Court to run a hotel business. However, the Appellate Authority held that the tenant is not entitled to challenge the finding recorded by the Rent Control Court against him under the second proviso to S. 11(3) of the Act, since the tenant did not file a Memorandum of Cross-objection in the Rent Control Appeal. This Rent Control Revision is filed by the tenant.

(3.) The 4th petitioner in the Rent Control Petition stated that he bona fide requires to run a hotel in the petition schedule building. He is aged 60 years. He stated that he was helping his father in his textile business. He has agricultural land. The 4th petitioner's wife also owns agricultural land. The 4th petitioner stated in evidence that his father's sister owns about 5 to 8 acres of agricultural land and it was being managed by the 4th petitioner on behalf of the owner, and for that purpose, he was residing in the house of the relative of his wife.