MOHAMMAD HAJI Vs. UMANANDA KAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of a proceeding under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 2 of 1965, and referred to herein as the Act. The premises in dispute were let out to the tenant by the petitioner- landlord under Ext. A-1 dated 4-4-1969 for a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. The landlord is occupying the first floor of the same building, and the premises rented out is the ground floor. Eviction was sought on the ground that the landlord bona fide needed the building for conducting a trade. It was after issuing Ext. A-2 notice dated 9-6-1971 that the eviction proceedings were launched. The tenant denied the bona fide need alleged by the landlord and also contended that the business run by him in the disputed premises is the main source of his income. The tenant also had a case that Ext. A-2 is not in accordance with law. The Rent Control Court repelled the contentions of the tenant and allowed eviction. The tenant took the matter in appeal. The appellate authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the bona fide need of the landlord, but dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that Ext. A-2 is violative of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Both the tenant and the landlord took the matter in revision. The revisional Court confirmed the decision of the appellate authority. Hence the tenant has filed C. R. 134/ 1975 and the landlord has preferred C. R. P. 518/1975.

(2.) In C. R. P. 134/1975 preferred by the tenant the sole question arising for decision is whether I must interfere with the finding of fact entered by the authorities below to the effect that the landlord bona fide aeeds the disputed premises for his own use. Three courts, on an appreciation of the evidence in the case concurrently found that the landlord's need is bona fide and that the tenant has got another flourishing business in the same locality in another building. On a perusal of the evidence in the case I entirely agree with the conclusions reached by the authorities below in that respect. I confirm the finding that the landlord bona fide needed the premises for bis use and occupation and dismiss C. R. P. 134/1975. No costs.

(3.) Through C. R. P. 518/1975 the landlord challenges the decision of the revisional authority regarding the invalidity of Ext. A-2 notice. The relevant portion of the notice is in the following terms: