THANKAMANI Vs. G. SETHUMADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the tenant challenges the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the respondent-landlord is entitled to get vacant possession of the petition-scheduled building as per Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act', for short). By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of dismissal of the eviction petition by the Rent Control Court.

(2.) One G.Sethumadhavan, the father of the respondents, rented out the tenanted premises to the petitioner for a monthly rent for conducting a Printing press. Alleging that the petitioner defaulted payment of rent from June 2012 onwards, late G.Sethumadhavan filed the eviction petition with a further contention that his son Ganesan (respondent No.2) and his grandson Nikhil, who are his dependents, have the experience and expertise to run a Cotton Textile business and thus he bonafide required the vacant possession of the petition-scheduled building for starting such a business therein by Ganesan and Nikhil. It was further pleaded that he had no other vacant building in his possession to start the proposed business. Sethumadhavan passed away while the matter was pending and then the present respondents were impleaded as supplemental petitioners.

(3.) The petitioner did not dispute the landlord- tenant relationship. But he resisted the eviction petition by contending that G.Sethumadhavan had bequeathed the petition-scheduled building to the third respondent and not to the second respondent Ganesan, which would indicate that the need put forward by him was only a ruse for eviction, as otherwise, he would have bequeathed the said building to Ganesan and Nikhil. The petitioner further contended that he is wholly depending on the income derived from the business run in the scheduled building for his livelihood and there are no suitable vacant buildings in the nearby locality to shift his business.