ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in the Civil Revision Petition is whether for a landlord to get eviction of the tenanted building under S.11 (4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 he has to prove that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him. According to the provisions contained under sub-s.(10) of S.11 is it mandatory for the landlord to satisfy the test provided under sub-s.(3) regarding bona fides even for getting eviction under S.11(4) (iii) also

(2.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. Respondents are the legal representatives of original landlord who filed R.C.P. No. 30/84 evicting the petitioner herein under S.11(3) and (4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control authority allowed the application for eviction on both grounds. On Appeal, the appellate authority found that the landlord has not made out a case for eviction on the ground of bona fide need under S.11(3), but at the same time eviction was ordered under S.11(4)(iii). Aggrieved by the above order of the appellate authority, this revision petition is filed by the tenant.

(3.) Sub-s.(1) of S.11 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The main portion of S.11(3) reads as follows: