PANDURANGA PRABHU Vs. MUHAMMED KUNHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner. R.C.P. 12/87 was filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner tenant under S.11(2)(a)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The rent control court disallowed the claim under S.11(3) and 11(4)(ii). In the appeal filed before the rent control appellate authority, the finding on the claim under S.11(4)(ii) was affirmed. But the appellate authority held that the landlord has proved bona fide need for occupation of his son and on that ground allowed eviction. Aggrieved by the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, the tenant has come up in revision.

(2.) The tenanted building is a shop room situate in 2 1/2 cents of land at Payyannur. Petitioner sought eviction of the above premises on the ground that his son needs the premises to open a branch of his partnership business carried on at Taliparamba and that his son can then reside permanently at Payyannur where his parents are also residing. The respondent tenant contended that there is no bona fides in the above prayer. According to him, petitioners son has got a flourishing business establishment at Taliparamba which is being managed by him exclusively. The need put forward, namely, to start a business at Payyannur is without any bona fides. The son of the petitioner is permanently residing at Taliparamba. He further submitted that he is entitled to the protection under the second proviso.

(3.) Rent Control Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish bona fide need as alleged in the petition. While coming to the above conclusion rent control court has observed that petitioners son and his partners in the business now run at Taliparamba had no case that they are under threat of eviction from Taliparamba and that the partners have not taken any decision with respect to the manner in which the business at Taliparamba and Payyannur had to be managed after getting eviction of the petition schedule room. The rent control court has noted that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent tenant had agreed with the proposition that it is open to the petitioner to seek eviction of the building for the purpose of partnership business conducted by his son. But, according to him, in the facts of the case, there was no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in putting forward such a claim. On appeal, the rent control appellate authority reversed the finding of the rent control court and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had proved bona fide need. Reliance was placed by the appellate authority on the evidence of PW. 1, the petitioner, PW 2, his son and also PW 4, another partner of PW 2 in the business carried on at Taliparamba. The appellate authority further found that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso as there is substantial evidence in this case adduced by the landlord that alternate accommodation is available in the locality.