A. SHEEBA MANOJ Vs. CHEKKOOTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 1 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Perambra, a petition filed by the respondent landlord for an order of eviction under sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for short.

(2.) THE landlord had in the petition for eviction averred that he bona fide needs the petition schedule shop room so as to enable his son Rajeevan to start a grocery business. He had further averred that the tenant is not running any business in the petition schedule shop room and that she has sublet it to others. Upon receipt of notice, the tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement resisting the rent control petition. She denied and disputed the bona fide need put forward by the landlord in the rent control petition and contended that she is mainly depending for her livelihood on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule shop room and that no other suitable shop rooms are available in the locality to shift her business. She has also denied and disputed the allegation that she has sublet the petition schedule shop room to third parties.

(3.) CHALLENGING the order of eviction passed by the rent control court under section 11(4)(i) of the Act, the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 20 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. Upon receipt of notice, the landlord entered appearance and filed a memorandum of cross objections canvassing the correctness of the finding entered by the rent control court under section 11(3) of the Act. The rent control appellate authority considered the rival contentions and dismissed the appeal and the memorandum of cross objections and upheld the order of eviction passed by the rent control court under section 11(4)(i) of the Act. The tenant has aggrieved thereby filed this appeal.