MANOLY HANEEFA Vs. PUTHIYAPURAYIL SHUHAIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision was filed by the tenants. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority ordered eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short "the Act") on the ground of the bona fide need of one of the landlords.

(2.) The tenanted premises originally belonged to one Meenakshi. Thereafter, Meenakshi assigned the building to the present landlords. The present landlords entered into a sale agreement with Manalil Khader, who was subsequently impleaded in the proceedings. The agreements appear to have been executed in 2006, 2009, and 2012. The suit filed by Khader for specific performance was dismissed by the Civil Court. One of the grounds urged in the revision petition was that the landlords initiated the rent control petition for eviction after Khader had filed the suit. It is also the case of the tenants that the assignment in favour of the present landlords has been questioned by the legal heirs of Meenakshi. However, there is no dispute to the fact that a landlord-tenant relationship exists and that the present landlords are the owners of the building.

(3.) The landlords sought eviction for the bona fide need of the first respondent, Shuhaib (one of the landlords), who intends to start a supermarket. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority were satisfied with the bona fides of the need projected by the landlord. It was also held that the tenant is not entitled to protection under the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act.