C.P. STANLY Vs. P.K. RAMA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed R.C.P.No.138 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam against P.K.Rama Iyer, the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 4. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent and on the ground of bona fide need under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequently, the landlord did not press the claim under Section 5 of the Act. The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 30.7.2009, allowed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(3) of the Act. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.49 of 2009 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The Appellate Authority, as per the judgment dated 30.9.2011, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The landlord has now come up in Revision challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE reason why the Appellate Authority rejected the claim under Section 11(3) is that there is no proper pleading on the part of the landlord with respect to the claim under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority held that the need advanced is not specific and that it is vague. In the Rent Control Petition, the need put forward by the landlord is contained in paragraphs 2 and 4, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:

(3.) THE petitioner and his sons bonafide needs the building for their own use and occupation....."