SIVADASAN Vs. ABDULLA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st respondent herein filed RCP No. 16/11 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Manjeri seeking eviction of the tenants, among whom, the 2nd respondent herein was the 1st respondent and the petitioner herein was the 2nd respondent. The ground urged in the petition was under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in as much as according to the landlord, he, who is now employed abroad, wanted to come back to the native place and start a business of construction materials in the building in question.

(2.) Before the Rent Control Court, the 1st respondent in the petition remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein, contested the matter. He disputed the bona fides of the landlord and also claimed the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Before the Rent Control Court, the Power of Attorney holder of the landlord was examined as P.W. 1 and the petitioner was examined as R.W. 1. Considering the matter, the Rent Control Court passed order dated 27th of February, 2013 allowing eviction. This order was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by dismissing RCA No. 15/13 filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Before us, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the bona fide need being a state of mind, can be proved only by examination of the landlord himself. According to him, since the Power of Attorney holder of the landlord alone deposed in court, such evidence could not have been accepted to find bona fide needs in favour of the landlord. On this basis, counsel contended that the orders passed by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, counsel also placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo v. Indusind Bank, 2005 2 KerLT 265 and Joseph Mathew v. Jose Thomas,2005 KHC 1834.