K MADHAVA Vs. PATHUMABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the Revision Petitioner. The Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently held that the Revision Petitioner is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule building under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The tenant has since then paid the arrears of rent and therefore, the only question arising for consideration in this Revision is whether the order under Section 11(3) of the Act suffers from any illegality requiring interference under Section 20 of the Act.

(2.) The tenant conducts a tailoring shop in the petition schedule building, namely, Door No. 111 -1160 of Kasaragod Municipality. The building was let out to him under Ext. A1 rent bond dated 16.11.1983. The monthly rent payable was Rs. 400/-. Rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 450/- and Rs. 550/-. The landlady (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') contended that she bona fide needs the petition schedule building for providing accommodation to her unemployed children Mohammed Ashraf and Abdul Nawaz, who are dependents on the landlord, for the purpose of conducting business in ready-made garments.

(3.) The tenant contended that the children of the landlord are running a ready-made garment shop in their own building in the town. Another textile shop is being run by them along with their father in their own building. The bona fide need put forward by the landlord is not genuine. The intention of the landlord is to let out the building to others for higher rent. The petition schedule building is situated on the side of a branch road which is not a good business centre. The petition schedule room is "very small" and insufficient for conducting business in ready-made garments. The tenant claimed that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.