RAGHAVAN Vs. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question which survives now, after the lapse of nearly a decade since the landlord and the tenant have forked each other with the rent control proceedings, is whether the tenant can be allowed to seek protection envisaged in the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) For the purpose of this revision there is no need to recite the entire facts or the history of this litigation. So we are mentioning only those facts barely necessary for the purpose of deciding the question. Eviction was applied for on the ground that landlord's eldest son Jayarajan was in need of starting a business in the building. Initially the tenant succeeded as the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the landlord failed to make out the need. This was on the premise that the landlord did not state the exact nature of the business his son had in contemplation. But, in a previous revision this court, following the decision of a Division Bench in Narayani v. District Judge ( 1991 (1) KLT 646 ) remanded the case to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. Appellate Authority found after remand that the landlord's need to accommodate his eldest son Jayarajan's proposed grocery business is bona fide.

(3.) But during the pendency of the rent control proceedings a development took place. Landlord got vacant possession of another building which is situated adjacent to the petition schedule building. On its basis the tenant advanced a contention in the appeal, after remand, that he is entitled to protection from eviction as envisaged in the first proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The landlord admitted that he got vacant possession of that other building (which is the next door room in the same edifice). However, he contended that the said room is set apart for his second son to start a flour mill and that the building is not useful as a grocery shop.