ISMAIL Vs. ABBAS

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.) Respondents are the owners of the petition scheduled building which was rented out to the petitioner by their predecessor-in-interest. Respondents contended that the first among them has no job and hence he wants to start a business in Hardware in the petition scheduled room. It was resisted by the petitioner by contending that the landlords are in possession of several other vacant rooms which are more convenient for starting the said business.

(3.) The eviction petition was filed in the year 1997 under Sec. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court had dismissed the petition finding that the landlords have no bonafides. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found in favour of the landlords and ordered eviction. This finding was reversed by the High Court and the case was remanded back to the trial court for taking fresh evidence as regards certain subsequent events viz., the landlords obtained vacant possession of three shop rooms followed by the eviction order in R.C.P. No.19/1992. After considering the fresh evidence, the Rent Control Court again found that the landlords were not entitled to get eviction as they were in possession of other vacant rooms which they rented out subsequently. The Rent Control Appellate Authority again set aside this finding and remanded back the matter for fresh disposal, on taking additional evidence. This time, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial court to inspect the petition-scheduled building and the other rooms. Accordingly, Ext.C1 report was filed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner was also examined as a witness.