P.P. JOSEPH Vs. A.M. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions. The respondent -landlord filed petition under Sec. 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for additional accommodation for his personal use. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition mainly holding that one of the rooms in the ground floor of the residential building can be used as respondent's separate office. Respondent filed appeals before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A. Nos. 102 of 1992 and 119 of 1992. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and reversed the findings of the Rent Controller. The eviction was granted in favour of the respondent under Sec. 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Controller on a consideration of the evidence held in para 8 of the order that the landlord is having considerable activities which require office space of reasonable magnitude. Despite the said finding, the Rent Controller held that the landlord has failed to prove the bonafides of his claim and the requirement of additional accommodation. The Appellate Authority considered the rival contentions of the parties elaborately and concluded that the landlord has established his case for additional accommodation.

(2.) Landlord examined as P.W.1 deposed about the need for additional accommodation. P.W. 1 was a member of the Director Board of the Federal Bank during 1990 -91. This is after filing of the rent control petition. Ext.A -12 shows that P.W.1 was a member of the Executive Committee of the Gandhi Peace Foundation Centre. P.W.1's evidence shows that he was a member of the State Executive Committee of the Kerala Prohibition Council having its office at Cochin. His evidence discloses the fact that after his retirement from the Union Ministry and from active politics he is still associated with the activities of very many religious and social organisations and Government agencies. The Appellate Authority found no reason to discard P.W.1's evidence. The evidence in the case shows that P.W.1 would require space for accommodating at least one clerk and a stenographer and for that purpose possession of the scheduled premises is absolutely necessary. Despite the cross -examination at length, nothing has been brought out to discredit his testimony.

(3.) Contention of the revision petitioner is that a portion of the drawing room can be used as office and so additional accommodation sought is without any justification. In view of the evidence on the side of the respondent that he has a large family and also in view of the fact that conversion of the drawing room would not be suitable to meet his requirements it has to be necessarily held that the Appellate Authority was justified in granting eviction under Sec. 11(8) of the Act.