P. ISMAIL Vs. THITHIKUTTY UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and that of the Appellate Authority under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) According to the tenant, the lease was in favour of his father in the year 1939. The rent fixed is Rs. 350/- per day. The landlady contended that she has three sons, one is employed abroad, another son Kunhikammu is conducting a business of STD Booth in a stair case room in the same building and another son Hamza Koya is unemployed. The landlady contended that her two children and grand children are dependent on her for the purpose of the petition schedule building. The bona fide need put forward is that her children and grand children want to conduct a bakery and fast food business in the petition schedule room and in a room in the up stair portion. It was contended that the business of the STD Booth does not generate sufficient income for the livelihood of Kunhikammu. The landlady also contended that the tenant is having his own business in his own building consisting of three rooms where he conducts furniture business under the name and style "Malabar Furniture Mart".

(3.) The tenant contended that the lease was in the year 1939 in favour of his father and after his father's death, he continued the business. He depends for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and there are no suitable buildings available in the locality to accommodate his business. The bona fide need put forward by the landlady was disputed. The tenant also stated that "Malabar Furniture Mart" run by him is situated two furlongs away from the petition schedule building.