MEENAKSHY Vs. R. ANANTHAMBAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, "1965 Rent Act", for short. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the tenant of a residential building. Three persons joined to file the petition for eviction. First among them was a 90 years' old widow of a Government servant. The second and third were her sons, the latter among whom was a retired Central Government servant, then aged 65 years. The need urged is that the mother, the second son and his wife wanted to return to their home town and reside in their own building. The elder son, who was the 2nd petitioner in the rent control petition, died pending that petition. The tenant challenged the need set up as not one which is bona fide and pleaded that she and her husband reside in the building and they have no other accommodation. She also attempted to say that the landlord had sold out about 1 1/2 cents of land and that such sale militates the plea of bona fide need. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority accepted the testimony of the 3rd petitioner in the rent control petition, who, along with his mother and wife wants to stay in the building, eviction of which is sought for.

(3.) The Courts below have concurrently held that the building is required by the landlords as noted above. Having considered the submissions in that regard which are essentially in the realm of appreciation of evidence, we see that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have duly considered the pleadings and evidence and have decided the case in accordance with law, justice, equity and good conscience, which are specifically prescribed in Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, for guidance. There is no ground of illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned decisions.