AZEEZ Vs. MUHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition under S. 20 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965), hereinafter called the 'Act'. The tenant challenges concurrent findings. Order of eviction was issued by the Rent Control Court on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord under S. 11(3) of the Act and on the ground of arrears of rent under S. 11(2)(b). That stands confirmed in a statutory appeal under S. 18 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent at the stage of admission.

(2.) The landlord Muhammed is deaf and dumb. His son Faisal is a married person. The need projected is that Muhammed wants the petition schedule shop room for his son Faisal to start a bakery business. Faisal has no other occupation. The Rent Control Petition was filed by Muhammed through his son as the duly constituted power of attorney. Evidence on record is that there is a lorry in Faisal's name and he has a licence to drive heavy vehicles. Tenant challenged the need set up and pleaded that he depends on the income derived from the business being carried out in the tenanted premises and that there is no alternate accommodation available to him in the locality. The tenant pleaded that Faisal has no intention to start any business in bakery or stationery and the application is only ruse to evict the tenant, who will be deprived of his livelihood in the event of eviction.

(3.) Before the Rent Control Court, Faisal and two other witnesses were examined, apart from the Commissioner who prepared Ext. C1 report. The tenant gave oral evidence and produced two extracts of the registers of the Accommodation Controller in an attempt to prove the non-availability of vacant place. The Rent Control Court looked into the entire oral and documentary evidence and appreciated the materials on record in the backdrop of the fairly severe cross examination to which PW 1 Faisal was subjected to. The different suggestions that were put to Faisal would ultimately show only that there was a lorry registered in his name and that he had a driving licence to drive heavy vehicles. We are of the view that, such situation by itself cannot denude a person from saying that he has the need to commence a business in bakery or stationery. It is not necessary, within the form at of Act 2 of 1965, that the landlord or a dependent of landlord should be asking for space by way of eviction only when he is in dire need to generate income for his sustenance. The appreciation of evidence by the Rent Control Court on the question of bona fide need stands affirmed at the hands of the Appellate Authority which also took stock of the entire material evidence on record. Having examined those findings in the light of the quality of evidence as is even reflected in the judgment impugned, we see no ground to interfere on that count.