ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANTS in rent control petitions 31 and 32 of 1976, on the file of the rent control court, Kayamkulam, are the revision petitioners. The same landlord was the petitioner in both the cases. His only asset on earth, as found by the courts below, is four cents of land having a building consisting of three rooms separated by temporary wooden partition. In the middle room, he is conducting a Press and residing with family. The northern room was let out to respondents 1 and 2 in R. C. P. 31 of 1976 and they are conducting a tea shop. The southern room was let out to the first respondent in R. C. P. 32 of 1976 and he is running a pan shop The second respondent is alleged to be the sub-tenant of the first respondent.

(2.) THOUGH other grounds were also alleged by the landlord for getting eviction, we are now concerned only with the bona fide need for own occupation relied on by the landlord as well as the protection claimed by the tenants under the second proviso to S. 11 (3) of Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act.

(3.) ON the evidence, the rent control court found that the tenants in R. C. P. 32 of 1976 are having properties and other income. No definite finding under the first part of the second proviso was entered by the rent control court, on the claim of the tenants in R. C. P. 31 of 1976. In both the cases, the finding of the rent control court is that alternate accommodation is available in the locality for the tenants. The appellate authority found that the tenants in both the cases are having landed properties and income, but they are depending for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business in the schedule rooms. It was further found by the appellate authority that from the evidence of the tenants and their witnesses, it is clear that they have not cared to ascertain whether alternate accommodation is available and hence they have not discharged their burden in proving both the ingredients of the second proviso as laid down in the decision reported in Kochappan Pillai v. Chellappan (1976 KLT. 1 ). The revisional authority agreed in these findings with the rent control court and the appellate authority. So also, on the basis of the evidence tendered by the landlord, all the courts found that alternate accommodation is available for the tenants. These findings are concluded.