PUTHIYA VANIYAN VEETTIL KAMALAKSHI Vs. MEETHALEPURAYIL IBRAHIMKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the tenant in RCP No. 19 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Taliparamba, which was filed by the respondent/landlord pressing into service ground under Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act which was allowed by order dated 23.03.2010. This order was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery in RCA No. 129 of 2010.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the submissions made. As we have already stated, RCP No. 19 of 1998 was filed by the respondent/landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant urging the ground of bonafide need as provided under Section 11(3) of the Act. In the first round, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction which was confirmed in RCA No. 109 of 1999 on the files of the Appellate Authority, Thalassery. That judgment was challenged by the tenant before this Court in RCR No. 241 of 2005. By judgment dated 29.10.2009, that RCR was allowed and the orders passed by the lower authorities were set aside. In the said order it was found that the landlord had failed to prove his pleaded case that he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and that he was then unemployed. Proceeding further, this Court also held:

(3.) AFTER entering into such finding, this Court took the view that the landlord can be given an opportunity to amend the pleadings and to adduce fresh evidence on all aspects including on bonafide need and the first proviso pressed into service by the tenant. The findings of the lower authorities on the second proviso claimed by the tenant was confirmed by this Court.