KRISHNANKUTTY MENON Vs. MALATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision arises in proceedings for eviction under the Rent Control Act. The tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the building for the landlord. Though the Rent Controller declined the prayer the appellate and the revisional authorities have granted the same.

(2.) The view taken by the appellate and the revisional authorities is fully justified by the evidence in the case. There is absolutely no scope for interference with the findings of those authorities in the limited revisional jurisdiction under S.115, CPC.

(3.) The landlord's family was a very large one. The family house belonged to eighteen different members. Understandably enough, the extreme inconvenience arising therefrom has been spoken to by pw. 1. An unpleasant atmosphere which had developed also has come out in evidence. The 1st petitioner, in such circumstances needs separate accommodation to live as an independent unit with her husband and children. A bona fide need is clearly established in the case.