M.T. KURIAKOSE Vs. C.P. SHAIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 7 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Perambra. The sole respondent is the landlord therein. The respondent/landlord instituted R.C.P. No. 7 of 2011 praying for an order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on the ground that he bonafide needs the petition schedule shop room for running an electrical shop. He contended that though he has completed the I.T.I. course, he is not having any job or avocation. The tenant opposed the application by filing written objections. He contended that the bonafide need put -forward is not true or genuine, that the landlord does not have any experience or skill for conducting the proposed business and that he has another shop room in his possession. The tenant also contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second limb of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) In the rent control court, the landlord examined himself as PW1 and produced and marked Exts. A1 and A2. The tenant examined himself as RW1. On application filed by the landlord, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the petition schedule building and also to enquire about other buildings in the locality, for the purpose of ascertaining the availability of other alternate accommodation. The report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ext. C1 and the plan accompanying it, as Ext. C2.

(3.) The rent control court considered the rival contentions and the materials on record and held that the need put forward is bonafide. The contention of the tenant that he is entitled to the protection of the second limb of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act, was repelled. An order of eviction was accordingly passed. The tenant carried the matter in appeal by filing R.C.A. No. 70 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. The appellate authority held that though the tenant has proved the ingredients of the first limb of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act, he has not succeeded in proving the ingredients of the second limb of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act. The appellate authority also held that the need put -forward is bonafide. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by judgment delivered on 18.6.2015. Hence, this revision petition.