SHAJI JOHN Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the tenant contends that the amendment allowed in the Rent Control Petition filed by the landlord, changing the need, goes to the very root of the case, citing the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajithkumar v. M.Asanaru Pillai [2022 (2) KHC 781]. Referring to paragraph No.5 of the judgment, the learned counsel for the tenant submits that the change of the need is not in tune with the proposition of law laid down by this Court in Ajithkumar's case (supra).

(2.) The need was originally projected for starting a business by the 1st respondent. The rent control petition was filed in the year 2017, and it came up for trial only in the year 2019. By that time, the 1st respondent had become a lawyer. Therefore, he filed an amendment petition to change the need. He stated that he intended to start a lawyer's office in the tenanted premises. This amendment was allowed, and the parties went on trial. The Rent Control Court found the need to be bona fide. This was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued, relying on paragraph No.5 of the judgment, which reads thus;